Tales of Conversion - Using Ubuntu at Work

madgreek writes "Here is a short story about my switch to Ubuntu from XP at work. I have been Microsoft-free for 3 months now at a Microsoft heavy shop. Few people know I am using Open Office and Linux. I create countless documents that people open using Word, Excel, PPT and nobody can tell that they were created using Open Office. From the article: 'When I first started my experiment I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of attacks from angry Microsoft worshipers (especially from the admins and desktop support). What I am finding out is that most of the folks that I was hiding from are sick and tired of supporting Windows and are proponents of Linux. Several of them are using Linux at home. One of the guys I talked to has Vista and XP installed on his laptop. He swaps out the hard drive when switching between OS's.'"

Comments

why does this sound overtly bias?

[ISwearNotmyPorn]

it does to me.

Re:why does this sound overtly bias?

[farkus888]

seriously? I am a Linux user who occasionally uses windows for work and the few programs I can't find an equivalent for in Linux, and those programs seems to get more rare by the day. I thought it was rather refreshing to see someone who wasn't on a militant rant. seemed to just say he tried Ubuntu because he wanted to see how it stacked up and it worked for him. it works for me too, and when it doesn't I use something else. but I do shamelessly admit my preference is for Linux so I may be overlooking my own bias.

Re:why does this sound overtly bias?

[Fred_A]

This "bias" thing is quite silly to start with. I started using Linux back in the WfW days because back then I had grown quite fed up with the instability of the document preparation programs I was using (Word 2.Oc notably which had a useable lifespan of about 6 to 8 minutes before it crashed depite my being on a first name basis with numerous people of the local Microsoft crew). Since then I've become quite comfortable with my setup (I did know Unix before through SunOS and (urk) SCO). Recently I got an iBook since it was one of the cheapest "decent" laptops.
However I don't like it. It just doesn't work for me. So it's hopefully going to make someone happy through eBay while I get a Dell and stick Linux on it.

As for Windows, I still use it for games but never really get to see much of it (just the start menu and the games sub menu) and I find its interface rather confusing. My copy is licensed bought directly on-line from microsoft. I wouldn't use it for working though because like MacOS I probably would have to fight it to do what I want. Besides I have no idea what software is available (apart for the few games I follow) and I couldn't care less.

All this talk of bias is mostly people finding something comfortable and finally finding an environment that works with them instead of against them. For me it was a customisable X11 desktop (KDE currently) with all the nifty Unixy tools, for others it may be MacOS or even Windows. The lucky ones get to gravitate towards the environment that works for them. The others are stuck with whatever was forced upon them in the beginning.

The ones that fight their machine every step of the way are the ones that show no bias.

Get out of town.

[Anonymous Coward]

It just works! At work!

Do we really need more switching stories that involve the same generic software?

I have been doing this for a long time

[h4rr4r]

No one has noticed or cared. Open office works fine for any use I have had yet. I run xp in vmware for the rare occasion I need it. Of course I am a linux sysadmin.

Re:I have been doing this for a long time

[verucabong]

I work at a FFRDC which is about 25/75 Mac/PC. However, there's a small group of folks who use Linux and religiously so. I've been using Ubuntu as my primary work OS for about a year now. I've got a PC box with our "standard image" so that I can still support that - I VNC into it. I've also got my 2 Macs because I do a lot of Mac support (and at home it's my platform of choice). But, I'll say, with Evolution for exchange support and Open Office for Word/Excel support, I'm EXTREMELY happy with Ubuntu. It's stable, reliable and when I need to get work done, it's just there. I've even gotten it hooked into our Novell shares.

Yes, there are a few quirks, mostly with web plug-ins like Windows Media and QuickTime (I'm sure I'll figure it out), but otherwise, I can't complain one bit. I love it, and I recommend it for just about anyone in an office environment.

Re:I have been doing this for a long time

[mackyrae]

mozilla-plugin-vlc should handle your in-browser media needs.

Re:I have been doing this for a long time

[aichpvee]

Do you not use spreadsheets much or if you do is it mostly just for making simple lists? Because beyond REALLY basic stuff Calc becomes very difficult to use. Not in the "I can't figure how to do something" way, but in the "it takes way too many steps to do it and decreases productivity significantly" way.

Too bad, really. Because now that OpenOffice is so established in the open source community no one is going to take it on and no one is going to push for significant improvements and actually get any of them done. Sort of a similar situation with GIMP. It's almost enough to make me wish that I didn't completely hate using windows and mac.

Re:I have been doing this for a long time

[tutwabee]

I am a Linux advocate and I've been using Open Office in Windows and Linux for at least four years. Open Office works fine for me unless I am opening documents that were created using Microsoft Office that use anything besides very basic features. Images frequently load improperly if at all and excel graphs never work correctly. I haven't made a PowerPoint Presentation in a couple years but last I tried my Open Office presentation had a couple problematic slides when opened in Microsoft Office. I love Open Office and I will always use it when I can. Unfortunately some of my classes in college require me to open Word documents with images or math formulas in them that do not load properly in Open Office. My Physics labs require me to use Excel so when if I need to add something to my excel sheets and I am using my own computer I end up needing Excel. Open Office is excellent, but just like Microsoft Word and Corel WordPerfect, collaborating documents with other office suites just doesn't work sometimes.

Applications are more important than the OS

[dybdahl]

Most office workers use more apps than e-mail and websurfing, and if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what. The same principle can be applied to most other apps in an office.

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[h4rr4r]

for MS office stuff crossover works fine. There is some talk of doing this for many employees where I work to reduce the helpdesk work load. I am very glad I have not had to do helpdesk in years.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[timmarhy]

"Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility."

While i agree that linux isn't ready for most business desktops and certainly isn't ready to the general public, that kind of logic escapes me. why SHOULD linux be focusing all this effort on being windows compatible? isn't the purpose to escape windows? it's also majorly retarded to sit there and proclaim linux is somehow inferior because windows is compatible with itself.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[clarkn0va]

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

And Windows is still far behind Ubuntu when it comes to Ubuntu compatibility.

db

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

That's his point. He's not slighting Ubuntu. But Windows has an advantage that Ubuntu will probably be unable to overcome entirely: that if you must be 100% compatible with Windows specific stuff, you're stuck with Windows.

They have to go through several different companies, so I'm just not going to trust my Critical Account spreadsheet macros to anything but Excel, and so I pay the MS Tax. At home it's Ubuntu. Google docs or even just gmail if I really have to type something.

It's called a monopoly, I think. It's been good and bad for computing.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[nrgy]

You just cant ignore compatibility with Windows. People will and do use different operating systems then one another, this is why you have to spend some amount of time making sure both can work with the same material.

Since Windows is the dominant OS as of today it is only logical for another OS to have some form of compatibility with Windows. An example would be applications for OSX or Linux that are used for XYZ, XYZ should/would like to make sure the application for Windows that is similar to XYZ can open XYZ files and also save them. This is only common sense, with your logic it would be like Apple only designing the iPod to work with Windows.

I think you maybe don't understand the purpose of compatibility. It's not about escaping Windows or Linux or OSX, it's about making sure whatever OS person "A" uses can create and share things with person "B" who uses another OS.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[mr_matticus]

Very true, but unfortunately irrelevant. In a different world where Ubuntu reigns supreme, someone might care. Unfortunately, the onus is on the bit players to be compatible with the standard, even if the standard is merely a de facto one.

Running Windows software out of the box is perhaps the most obvious way to get ahead--it's how Windows beat out OS/2!

That said, there is a philosophical disconnect as well. Most people don't have any real trouble with Windows, or perhaps more accurately, don't see what they do each day AS trouble. Just like the adage, "you don't know what you have until you lose it," you don't know what you have to put up with until you no longer have to deal with it.

As for all the lofty ideals of open source people: no one cares. There's also no reason they should, so don't waste time lamenting the "ignorant masses." Just give them a product that works fully and competes everywhere it should (this includes the UI--it's more than colors and eye candy, and while they can't grasp usability, Microsoft does know a thing or two about layout and presentation). You'll get a philosophical win by proxy--that should be motivation enough.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[martinelli]

"Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility." This may be the case, but Microsoft Windows happens to be far behind Ubuntu, when it comes to Linux compatibility.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Daengbo]

Honestly, it doesn't matter much in a corporate environment: You use Wine if it is stable for your app, you use a VM if you want perfect compatability, or you use rdesktop to connect to a terminal server (which could even be the VM) -- there is even the ability to connect to a TS per application so that they are well integrated into the Desktop. There are a million more ways for corporations to set this up. Ubuntu doesn't need to work on added Windows compatability for the corporation.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

What the parent is saying is that using Microsoft as the standard with which to compare everything to is simply stupid. They do not have, by far, the greatest standards in many, many areas.

Just because Windows is the dominant OS does not mean that we should therefore use it as an industry standard. Standards need to be developed for the industry as a whole, not just as Microsoft sees fit. This is partly why Microsoft has such control is because people just roll over and accept what Microsoft does as standard even if they don't like it or there is a far better way to do it.

If you continue to write to what Microsoft decides is best, why even bother with alternatives? Seriously? How does this point escape you?

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[mr_matticus]

Connecting to a VM for users to access an application is not reasonable. Remote desktop poses the same problem, and Wine is just a shim. There are a million *suboptimal* ways for corporations to set this up. Ubuntu would most certainly benefit from improved Windows compatibility, not just for the corporate environment, but for everyone. Something like Parallels or Crossover on the Mac have the right idea, but it needs to be seamless, more like Rosetta, for it to take off.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Sycraft-fu]

Well, maybe it doesn't need to be compatible, but he's right: Apps are important. So if not compatible, Linux needs to have alternatives. By that I mean REAL alternatives, not stuff that you have to argue about. For many people, the apps alone mandate that a switch to Linux can't happen.

I'm like that at home. I haven't even looked at Linux for home because I know that, regardless of any other problems, it isn't usable because it doesn't support the software I want. I am not going to compromise my computing experience, it's a tool, and I'll use what makes it do what I want the best, which is Windows in this case.

Well this holds true in many cases. You can't expect someone to realistically switch to your platform if you can't offer them apps that they need. Also it needs to either be that app, or one that is just as good. You can't start demanding compromise. You can't tell a professional graphics artist that GIMP should be "good enough" and they "don't need what Photoshop has." That's lying to them and to yourself. You can't expect them to make a switch unless you are offering something that's at least as good, and probably better.

So really, it is a big problem Linux faces right now. In so many settings, it simply doesn't offer the apps that people need and thus can't be considered, regardless of other merits. One real way to solve this would be total Windows compatibility. If you could execute any Windows app under Linux, well then there's nobody who uses Windows that won't be able to get all their apps. Then the argument is purely about technical merits, cost, familiarity and so on. I'm not saying that's the only way to go or even the right one, but it is a legit thing to consider. People need certain apps. If you can't offer them those apps or something very much like them, you aren't a contender, regardless.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Daengbo]

I don't see how Parallels is different for the end user than having a VM running in the background with the user connecting per application via rdesktop. I didn't mention the Win4Lin server, either. Think clients are the best way to do this corporately, IMHO.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you that it's all about the applications. However, you failed to mention which applications you need to use at home. You mention Photoshop so I assume that you are a professional graphic designer or similar and you are not just using a warezed copy.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[mr_matticus]

Thin clients are a massive and undesirable infrastructure change. Parallels is different from running a VM because all the handoffs are transparent. You put in a Windows CD or launch an .exe file, and it takes care of it more or less like Windows. A VM in the background only works for completely managed environments set up by the IT staff, and even still represents an unnecessary amount of network traffic and overhead for what should be done locally. Installing and managing local VMs gets right back to the problem of being adequate but completely undesired.

"It can be done" isn't good enough. It has to be well-executed and seamless.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[abhi_beckert]

Just because Windows is the dominant OS does not mean that we should therefore use it as an industry standard. Standards need to be developed for the industry as a whole, not just as Microsoft sees fit.

That's all very nice, but in some fields Microsoft *is* the industry standard. You bitch about it all day, but Microsoft Office is the standard, and until that changes compatibility will be crucial.

For example, at my job (web programming) I'm required to record the times I spend on each client, so my manager can invoice the client. My manager uses MS Excel, and therefore I must use a document format that he can open, even though I'm not running windows on my mac workstation. Similarly, my css and javascript must be compatible with IE 6, and my server-side code mustn't trigger any security warning dialogs under IE 7.

The end result is, wether I like it or not, I must use an Excel compatible format (and I've found Excel to work the best), and I must run a virtual machine to properly test websites in both versions of IE. Excel is a memory hog and has terrible workflow, and IE is absolutely the worst browser to use as a standard.

But microsoft *is* the standard, and many many people have no choice but to follow that standard.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[jimicus]

TBH, as soon as anyone says "$PRODUCT is not as Windows compatible as Windows", you can probably stop listening.

Windows is a proprietary software product. Much of what goes on under the hood is completely unknown - enough information has been reverse engineered for some interoperability (cf. Samba, ndiswrapper), but expecting any product to ever be as "Windows compatible as Windows" is asking for the moon.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[1u3hr]

if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what. The same principle can be applied to most other apps in an office. Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

"Paris Hilton looks more like Paris Hilton than any Paris-Hilton look-alike". Still, misses the point: Is Paris Hilton worth looking like, or emulating in any way?

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[ratboy666]

So Linux has never been a consideration for you at home? I also presume work, as well. Because it doesn't have applications (as you state)...

This doesn't make sense. How would you know? Presumably, you have never used GIMP, and you are commenting about it. Presumably, you have never used OpenOffice.org, or Evolution, or GNumeric, either. And yet you comment on them. Presumably, you have never used Firefox, either. Your statement was rather a blanket comment.

Or, have you used these applications under Microsoft Windows(tm), and found them wanting?

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[seasunset]

My father (61 years, computer illiterate) works from home, on an old computer (Still with Windows Me). At the time of installation, Linux was not read for a user like him, but I decided to install OpenOffice and Firefox. You know what? 100% of work documents (and he receives several word documents a day) always worked. He has less than 5% problems with funny PPTs that friends send him, but that is all... He also does some light spreadsheet processing, never had a problem.

His biggest problems: Virus, Spam and undesired access from his stepson.

This year he is going to change computer. Obviously Kubuntu (or any other easy to use Linux) is the better choice, as it will solve 2/3 of his problems.

Games? The games he plays are all available on Linux (hint: He is not waiting for Duke Nukem Forever, but is a master at Tetris).

I could talk about my case, in my work there are 2 Linux users and gazillions of Windows users, and I never had a problem... On the other hand, my Windows colleagues had (an inspection from the police regarding pirated software).

I could talk of a lot of other cases that I know off, I personally don't know, on the business front, of a single case of failure for Linux users (granted, it is a sample based on my small universe).

The point is, for a reasonable part of business users Linux/Firefox/Openoffice is more than enough.

The only companies that I know off that Linux would make life problematic are those using Exchange calendaring system (which is quite nice, actually). But even that, maybe there is a nice plugin already (I don't use Exchange calendaring for more the 3 years)

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[penix1]

Most office workers use more apps than e-mail and websurfing, and if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what.

You see this thrown out time and again as a reason to stay with Microsoft Office but what isn't mentioned is the fact that even Microsoft acknowledges that the Excel macro days are dead. They have become such a security risk that default installs of office since 2000 has had them turned off by default. In Office 2003 that setting is controlled by the system administrator (at least in my office it is) and can't be enabled by the user. So that kind of takes away that excuse...

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[couchslug]

"While i agree that linux isn't ready for most business desktops and certainly isn't ready to the general public, that kind of logic escapes me. why SHOULD linux be focusing all this effort on being windows compatible?"

To be ready (= useful) for business desktops and the general public.
I have a very nice set of Whitworth wrenches. They aren't compatible with my metric and SAE fasteners. I can wait for the world to adapt to me, or I can get the job done.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[corvair2k1]

At the level you present it, this is not generally true. Office works fine... If the most recent version of office you wish to run is Office 2000. According to the codeweavers website, Word 2003 has "bronze" status, which means: bronze applications generally have enough bugs that we recommend that our customers not depend on their functionality. This isn't good enough for people who use more recent versions of office regularly.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[TheRaven64]

It's been a while since I used it on either platform, but I recall OpenOffice having much better compatibility with Word documents on Windows than on FreeBSD due to COM support. Office documents use OLE/COM/ActiveX (or whatever it's called this week) to embed objects that Office doesn't natively understand. These are basically a binary blob with a UUID indicating the component that should be used to decode them. The specification requires a bitmap representation of the contents to be included too, but this is often very low resolution, or just plain broken. When running OpenOffice on Windows, it can use any installed COM components when importing a document. When running it on a platform that doesn't support COM (i.e. anything that's not Windows), it will have to fall back to the bitmap representation.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Paolo DF]

Let me tell you that Microsoft, then, IS the standard FOR YOU!
If your manager had -say- LOTUS 1-2-3, then microsoft wouldnt be the standard.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[thegnu]

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.
That is so true.

However, people can run crossover office for $40, as cheap as an antivirus, and it's a one-time sale. People who are adventurous can figure out how to install office with Wine (probably one of the best supported installs).

People can also make a VM with Windows in it. Which is what I do, since I sometimes have to do remote desktop.

It's hardly infeasible.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[canuck57]

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

The reverse is also true, Microsoft is still far behind Ubuntu/Linux, when it comes to interoperability with other OSes.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

What utter drivel. Windows is far, FAR behind any linux distro. I am far, far more productive using linux for the past 8 years, than all of the time I wasted in the years before that using M$ junk. You go right ahead and keep using that windows junk with excuses like 'oh, we absolutely MUST use Excel for spreadsheets', while your competitors who have (or will) switch will eat your lunch. Yep, you just stay right where you are with all of the windows lockin, stability, malware, lack of source, lack of flexility, lack of customization, backup problems, etc., while others race by you...Good luck with your 'oh, we MUST use Excel' mantra.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

> if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what

Ironically, you will soon be very correct because even the new Mac version of Office is slated to be macro-less. The irony is that NeoOffice already has a less-than-100% macro (VBA) compatibility to make up for the upcoming Office's 0% compatibility. Just remember that a Microsoft solution is the only way to have 100% intra-version compatibility, but that something nobody (as of yet) has created is the only way to have 100% inter-version compatibility.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[dhasenan]

Excel understands HTML tables. IE6 runs under Wine, as does IE7's rendering engine -- though I doubt that does anything about the warning dialogs. However, if you're already running a virtual machine, running it under Linux is a minor change.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[blackest_k]

It is not a choice between using Linux or Windows or OSX.

The real question is do you want a bigger range of tools to do the things you want to do?

By running Linux as well as Windows and OSX and Windows Mobile. I get the choice of what software to use for a particular task.

For some tasks Linux is superior in terms of what features are available Other tasks it may be better to use another OS

The cost of running Linux as an additional OS is minimal.

For a simple analogy if you have a screw to fasten use an appropriate screwdriver if its a nail use an appropriate hammer.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

In English the word YOU is 2nd person PLURAL.

In late Middle English it went:

I am
Thou art
HE / She / It is.

We are.
You are/
They are.

Which is fortnate for you that is You being plural since MS Windows format is the standard for 90+% of business users outside of computer software code writers.

Like it, lump it, or ignore it as it does not matter you are not going to change it; it is what it is.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[fimbulvetr]

I just installed ubuntu for my mom and dad's computer about 4 months ago, they are mid-50s and use it without issues. In fact, they are pleasantly surprised with how stable it is and are 100% happy that the dialup, etc, is stable. They use OO.org, gnome-tetris and some tanks game on a regular basis. I haven't had a tech support call from them in 3.9 months.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[CrossChris]

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

This has got to be one of the most stupid things I've ever seen posted on /.

The poster simply doesn't get it. Windows is largely irrelevant. It's just a poor proprietary client for a Unix world!

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[CrossChris]

Actually Windows often fails to be compatable with Windows. Just ask the poor suckers who've paid for Vista and find that most of their apps and none of their hardware drivers work anymore.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[INT_QRK]

This is no shocker. I've used Ubuntu exclusively on my laptop for work since 5.whatever - what was the version before 6.06? Now I'm on Ubuntu 7.04. Anyway, most people have no ideas that I suck their MS docs, spreads and presentations, etc., into OpenOffice and blow them back out as MS Office files routinely. We use spreads heavily, as an analytics/systems engineering organization. Spreads don't have to be 100% compatible (this vastly applies to most apps). What percent of MS Office feature do you think most people use? I have only occasional experienced interoperability issues with the following, all easily solvable: - One way issues (MS to OO) with graphics embedded in MS documents that were saved in MS Office proprietary format loading slowly or with distortion. I can usually ctl-x the graphic and paste special to an open standards image format. The problem doesn't go the other way. Any image created in OO and saved out into XP format does not create a problem (my experience -- exhaustive testing with all image fomats not performed). - Occasionally I'll get an MS document that becomes so distorted due to the accumulation of generational file junk (people tend not to use MS templates incorrectly and keep modifying old examples) that I have to recue it by opening it in oo, saving as ODT, opening it again, then saving it back as .doc -- this cleans the document. - On the few MS spreads that we use that contain charts, I'll concede that MS does some complex charts better. Occasionally I've had to open in Excel (use Crossover Office for those emergencies -- with my old MS Office that I bought and paid for when I bought this same laptop). - Same issue on Power Point when people use office graphics formats. Same solution. I also use the myriad of open source apps such as Umbrello UML, saving out to OMG *STANDARD* XMI or png for others, and several others to intake. I really have come to prefer Ubuntu Gnu/Linux over Windows, and have experienced no real down sides, although I don't play games, so don't experience the issues that I understand others have experienced using their computers as playgounds. However, occasionally somebody enters my office and stops and stares at my screen before noting that my "screen" looks funny.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[donaldm]

Yes you are right you can get crossover products however in a work environment you must have properly licensed software or software that is acceptable to the company. If not then you risk your Organisation being heavily fined and the offending person(s) being fired or even facing a hefty fine. VMware is a licensed product as are many Microsoft products and while I would not see this on a home PC (sticks fingers in ears and stares at ceiling) putting any of these products on a work PC requires payment for licenses.

Most companies specify Microsoft products on their work computers and you have no choice but to comply or face disciplinary action. Some companies like the one I work for (over 100,000 employees) are much more flexible and have allowed Linux PC's and 16% of the work force (mainly technical) have taken this up. The criteria is you must be able to to do your job within the Organisation. For some this is easy for other it is more difficult (like myself, thank goodness for "Cygwin") because of certain security software which is Microsoft centric although we do have some who are working on this. Fortunately it is mandatory that a web page must work in both Firefox and IE6 (IE7 is not supported although it does work).

I have both a work computer with XP (Vista is not allowed) and my own laptop with Fedora 7 which is very useful for testing purposes since it keeps me comfortable with using, trouble shooting and testing the Redhat versions of Linux (Xen works well for this). It must be noted that I would not recommend Fedora for a beginner since it does have its issues which are easy for me to fix but not that easy for others. While I have never used Ubuntu every review I have read says that this is the best for most people who want Linux on their PC/Laptop (we use PCLinuxOS on some of our work PC's), but even so for a work computer you must have what your work dictates. For home well that is your choice and Fedora 7 (no dual boot either) works for me.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You mention Photoshop so I assume that you are a professional graphic designer or similar and you are not just using a warezed copy.

As amazing as it may seem to certain people here, some of us actually pay for good software even at home. Not every home user of Windows illegally rips all the software they run on it, you know.

This, to me, is actually quite a good argument for using OSS applications on Windows. I like the fact that I can have Firefox, Thunderbird and OpenOffice installed legally and without cost, and these are perfectly adequate for my simple needs at home. It leaves me more money to pay for things like good games and good graphics/design/DTP/fonts related stuff for when I'm being creative.

Even though I'm only getting this stuff for fun, like the GP poster I wouldn't choose to use an alternative platform if it didn't have the same quality of software available. It doesn't need to be the same software, but it does need to be similarly capable.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Or, have you used these [OSS] applications under Microsoft Windows(tm), and found them wanting?

I think that's part of the problem with promoting OSS culture today. The focus for OSS projects is often Linux development, and for all they claim to be multi-platform, the Windows ports are frequently bug-ridden to the point of being completely useless. The GIMP and Scribus are the too most obvious offenders, having been completely unusable every time I've tried them, and that means several versions over several years on several different Windows boxes so it's no fluke. However, even the mighty Firefox and OpenOffice have their moments: see "printing" and "font handling" respectively, for example.

The irony, of course, is that even if these applications are rock solid and fit in perfectly on Linux, the negative PR they get from being rubbish on Windows makes people think the applications themselves are rubbish. Then, far from being a credit to Linux, they make the average punter wonder whether Linux itself is just more of that "unstable Open Source stuff", without ever even installing it.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[spk037]

And praise be to god that I dont have to use that buggy, spyware infestested pile of putrid code for anything. Im 100% linux on all my workstations and servers. microsoft can just f off and die.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[at_slashdot]

"You can't tell a professional graphics artist that GIMP should be "good enough" and they "don't need what Photoshop"

I don't know for others, but myself I'm getting tired to hear about Photoshop everytime switching from Windows to Linux is mentioned. Does anybody know what is the market penetration of Photoshop? 50%? 20%? 3%? of Windows users? Thanks!

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Draek]

so? Windows, and DOS before it, always have been far behind Linux and *BSD in UNIX compatibility, yet that didn't prevent it from eventually dominating the marketplace.

"compatibility with the previous de-facto standard" is only needed to convert the followers, not the leaders, and once the leaders switch, the followers shall, well, follow either way.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Atlantis-Rising]

So you are claiming the software developers know more about the OS functions than those who are attempting to create the compatibility layer?

The software developers know that if you call function X, it does Y. So does whoever is creating the compatibility layer.

This may be a valid concern for Microsoft software- presumably, Microsoft software developers DO know more about the OS than anyone else.

But for third-party apps, it shouldn't be a concern.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[masdog]

For me, apps are just part of the problem. In addition to being a network admin (and relatively new in that position), I run (or at least attempt to run) my own photography business. Linux, as a desktop, is not an option for me because it won't run Photoshop or work with RAW files.

That doesn't mean I won't be using any Linux, BSD, or other free software. I have scribus, Kompozer, Thunderbird, and Firefox on my windows laptop. My primary file server will be a Linux box or FreeNAS (once I get it set up). I use Ubuntu Server in a VM as a test server for my website. And I will be building my VPN on openswan. The only thing I am missing is Active Directory and Exchange, but I don't feel like paying $500 bucks for Server 2003 Small Business.

Like anything, its about finding balance. Find the areas you're comfortable using a particular type of software and use it there. You don't have to use it for everything, especially in areas where it doesn't fit.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[mahlerfan999]

Most office workers use more apps than e-mail and websurfing, and if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what. The same principle can be applied to most other apps in an office. And that's why I use Excel, and prefer it to OO. People say "that's not Linux's fault!" But it is. MS is not responsible for creating oss clones of their software. They are not to blame if someone tries but only manages partial compatibility. And I use Powerpoint over Impress because it's actually a much better program. It's more powerful, more sophisticated, while at the same time having an easier to use UI. And OO Writer makes formatting such a chore! The formatting on most word processors is more intelligent and you don't have to fight it. People need compatibility, but that's not the only issue, OO is not equal in quality to MS.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Dan Ost]

Have you done anything clever to coexist with those around you that use Windows that you'd like to share with us?

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[that this is not und]

I run NetBSD and Windows 2000 desktop machines at home.

I have not experienced any significant 'spyware infestation' problem on the W2K machine. I sometimes wonder if the people with spyware problems are at all responsible for the layers of crud on their machines. Do you all just happily layer in all the crap you can find to download?? "Oh look! If I use the 'Shining Turd' IM client, I can talk to suzie and ruth at the same time!" And so it goes.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[that this is not und]

Well, we could list any other number of application areas where the OSS alternatives are far, far behind the commercial alternatives. In CAD, in Multimedia authoring and manipulation, in Finanacial Tools. These are all real applications that many people find important. And the OSS alternatives rank poorly in many regards.

Now, I use gEDA for a lot of things at home, and even if it were $50 per seat instead of free, it would be 200-500 times cheaper than the commercial alternatives. However, time is money when you're doing 'real world' engineering design work. Sometimes it pays off to delegate the software development to professionals who have been working on coding and actual honest-to-goodness Human Factors design, rather than whomever volunteers for a community driven project.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[jimicus]

Ah, no, you're quite correct.

This is why Wine has been such an amazing success, why OpenOffice is practically indistinguishable from Microsoft Office and why Samba is able to replicate the functionality of a Windows 2000 Domain only 7 years after Windows 2000 was released so flawlessly.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Sancho]

I sometimes wonder if the people with spyware problems are at all responsible for the layers of crud on their machines. Mostly, they are. But occasionally there will be a zero-day in IE that allows a malicious website to compromise your box, or a worm will pop up on a port you have to have open for whatever reason, and at that point, you're basically screwed. You're playing Russian Roulette with the sites you visit, or a waiting game to see when someone else on your network gets the worm and it starts hitting your subnet.

Not that these scenarios couldn't happen with Linux, but they tend not to. It's probably a combination of marketshare and inherently more secure code (preventing the creation of the worms in the first place). Plus what you said--not acting like a ferret and downloading every shiny .exe that you see.

What it isn't (though I'm sure many will contradict this) is Windows "Administrator by default" mindset. That doesn't make it any easier for your computer to get infected, it just makes it easier for the crapware to hide out. If 90% of the people out there couldn't clean up their computer if all of the malware was visible (though not obvious), then not being administrator isn't going to change much.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

We do have

  - A Preview button

  - Plain Old Text for CR/LF

  - HTML tags

Please apply in a suitable amount to make your otherwise useful comment ready for reading

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Atlantis-Rising]

I'm not a programmer, to start with, and secondly, I'm not sure if you're attempting to be sarcastic or not-

There's always a problem with catching a moving target, especially if the target is attempting to evade you and has tons more speed (resources) than you do.

Hence Microsoft Office/OpenOffice (although I think that's also very much a mentality issue on the part of Openoffice- they don't want to replicate Microsoft Office, because in replicating a moving target you necessarily can't do it as well as the original.)

More importantly, however, you are ignoring the thrust of my argument- Microsoft Developers do have access that third party developers don't. Compatibility programmers are in exactly the same boat as Joe Blow who's designing his own paint clone- they have exactly the same function calls and so on to work with.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[djschaap]

Do you mean market penetration or actual usage? Not everybody pays for their software.

And no, I haven't paid for Photoshop, but that's because I don't have it. I'll stick with The Gimp for my personal use until I find a need to switch.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[oohshiny]

You can't tell a professional graphics artist that GIMP should be "good enough" and they "don't need what Photoshop has.

Why not? When Photoshop started out, it was a poorly designed toy with a lousy user interface, yet "professional" users still used it instead of the professional graphics programs of the time. Why? Mostly out of ignorance and partly because of price.

What does that tell us? It tells us that your argument that "professionals" need all the bells and whistles is bullshit. And, in fact, most imaging professionals don't need Photoshop because most imaging professionals at most need simple color corrections and cropping, something for which Photoshop's gimmicks just get in the way.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[TheABomb]

But this is Slashdot, where if you're not compatible with yourself, you're pretty much out of luck.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[HalAtWork]

Well, maybe it doesn't need to be compatible, but he's right: Apps are important. So if not compatible, Linux needs to have alternatives. By that I mean REAL alternatives, not stuff that you have to argue about.

I've used Open Office for real work, such as inventory/profit calculators, billing, invoice templates, etc.

I'm like that at home. I haven't even looked at Linux for home because I know that, regardless of any other problems, it isn't usable because it doesn't support the software I want.

So, you want alternatives, you just don't want to have to use them ever. I guess you just prefer Windows for no reason that can be applied to others, it's just personal preference.

Also it needs to either be that app, or one that is just as good. You can't start demanding compromise. You can't tell a professional graphics artist that GIMP should be "good enough" and they "don't need what Photoshop has." That's lying to them and to yourself. You can't expect them to make a switch unless you are offering something that's at least as good, and probably better.

Professionals? I thought you were talking about home desktop use. Oh well, you have to make whatever "evidence" you can grab at fit the argument, I guess. Even the products Microsoft makes, Office, Outlook, IE, don't work the same on Mac as on Windows, and don't support the same features, formats, or macros. They can read each others' files but not perfectly, and macros aren't 100% compatible, just like OpenOffice. Are they lying? People still use them and switch between them, I guess that learning something different isn't a problem. Maybe the solution is just to call OpenOffice Microsoft Office? I guess nobody knows about Crossover? StarOffice, or Cinepaint either? Nobody is looking at applications professionals use in production, or at commercial Linux applications?

So really, it is a big problem Linux faces right now. In so many settings, it simply doesn't offer the apps that people need and thus can't be considered, regardless of other merits. One real way to solve this would be total Windows compatibility.

Oh noes, the Mac is not 100% Windows compatible either, I guess Apple should give up. Seems to me the only big problem Linux faces right now is stigma that can be gleaned from posts such as yours.

See ya.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know for others, but myself I'm getting tired to hear about Photoshop everytime switching from Windows to Linux is mentioned. Does anybody know what is the market penetration of Photoshop? 50%? 20%? 3%? of Windows users? Thanks!

It doesn't matter what the general public market penetration is, since Photoshop dominates the realm of commercial artists. They learned Photoshop either through art school discount copies or during their first apprenticeship year. These people are hired for their artistic qualities, not for their technical computer skills, so it is by far less expensive for the employer to buy them the software they want to use than to try to train them in anything else. (Have you ever tried to train someone who thinks he's an "artist"? It would be easier to run an Alcoholics Anonymous chapter in a tavern)

This is likely to change over the next five years. First, the market for digital cameras and digital image software is leveling off, so the tremendous influx of noobies who were buying Photoshop for its reputation ("it's what the pros use") is going away, to be replaced by people who know a little bit about what they need and can make informed shopping choices. Second, the cutting edge of commercial art is moving away from raster graphics to vector graphics and 3D modeling. There are highly respected FOSS entries in both of these fields (Inkscape and Blender are respective examples) so no private company is going to be able to get the same mind lock on the commercial artists as Adobe has had with Photoshop.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[init100]

As amazing as it may seem to certain people here, some of us actually pay for good software even at home.

Yes, it is amazing. None of my friends and few that I know of use anything but pirated software at home. They all use the professional version of various packages such as Windows, PS and Office, since they think that "professional = better", but they flat-out refuse to pay for it, since it is "too expensive". "I want it, but I'm not going to pay. Nobody will catch me anyway" is the prevalent opinion. So it is certainly amazing to see people actually buy software for use at home.

This does not apply to me though. I have a legal Windows license, and I don't use PS or Microsoft Office, as I only use Windows for games. I buy the games that like, because I want to support developers that make good games. For the rest of my computing needs, I use Linux and other F/OSS.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[photomonkey]

I'm not sure what market penetration is, but of 'professional' software outside of everyone's favorite productivity suite, I'll bet it's either one of, or the most popular application.

Photoshop, although a complicated piece of software, is easy enough to use, and works with a type of file that nearly everyone has an interest in: pictures. At $700, it's a nice complement to Joe Bob's $3000 digital camera.

Besides Joe Bob, graphic designers use it, Web designers use it, photographers use it, digital painters use it, etc. I'd bet that nearly every modern business (small, medium or large) has at least one workstation with Photoshop on it.

Look at the piracy too. I bet that the Creative Suite is almost as pirated as Office or Windows. It's one of the easiest pieces of software to find on various torrent sites. Even if people aren't buying it, many still use it.

And from a practical standpoint, even if only 2% of computer users justifiably NEED Photoshop to do their jobs, there is nothing out there that works anywhere near as well. And as much as I wish it weren't the case, GIMP is not only not in the same class, I'm not sure if they're even playing in the same league.

I'll cite CYMK support, memory management (Pshop is a hog, GIMP is worse), PSD compatibility, respect for EXIF and IPTC, and a lack of support for standard third party plugins.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[init100]

Does anybody know what is the market penetration of Photoshop? 50%? 20%? 3%? of Windows users?

Among my friends, I'm almost the only one who don't have it. Everyone else do (pirated of course), even though they only use it for simple tasks like cropping pictures and the like. Since they know that Photoshop is the preferred image manipulation program among graphics professionals, they won't listen to suggestions to use another application, since "professional means better".

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[init100]

One real way to solve this would be total Windows compatibility.

May I ask how that would be accomplished? Windows is a moving target, and as long as it continues to move, it will be impossible to get 100% Windows compatibility.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[init100]

It's called a monopoly, I think. It's been good and bad for computing.

In what way has the monopoly been good for computing?

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[init100]

Your parents run a tanks game? My mom never plays any game ("games are for kids"), and my dad only plays solitaire and minesweeper every now and then.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[ricegf]

@dybdahl: "Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility."

You get modded "Interesting" for "A thoroughbred racehorse is still far behind a hamster, when it comes to being a hamster"??? Oh my, how the yardstick has shortened!

I would counter that Ubuntu is much, much closer to Windows compatibility than Windows is to Ubuntu compatibility. It's true that Microsoft's barely trying, but at least my assertion isn't a tautology! :-)

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I have a legal Windows license, and I don't use PS or Microsoft Office, as I only use Windows for games. I buy the games that like, because I want to support developers that make good games. For the rest of my computing needs, I use Linux and other F/OSS.

Yes, I take much the same view. Where OSS is good enough for my needs, great, no need to spend any money. Where OSS isn't up to the job, I believe in fairly supporting those who write software I want to use, so I buy it. As far as I'm aware, everything on my PC is 100% legal, including the software and music.

Actually, the most expensive thing I bought recently was a pro-grade font set. Sure, I could have ripped it off, but someone (probably several people, actually) worked for months (probably years, actually) to make that font look as good as it does, and they have rent to pay as well. If I didn't want my work to look good in print, I wouldn't be bothering with a careful choice of font, so why wouldn't I want to support people who set the same high standards as I do?

I wouldn't be surprised to find that all of this was a minority position. Some choose to show their contempt for unreasonably high prices by ripping off the software makers. I choose to show it by not buying their product. I find it hypocritical when people argue that a product isn't worth buying because it's buggy/missing features/<insert excuse here>, but then proceed to rip it and use it anyway.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[MaXimillion]

If nobody is willing to hire you unless you look like Paris Hilton, yes.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[abhi_beckert]

What it isn't (though I'm sure many will contradict this) is Windows "Administrator by default" mindset. That doesn't make it any easier for your computer to get infected, it just makes it easier for the crapware to hide out.

Another advantage to not running as admin, assuming your OS has a good security model, is you're more likely to be able to remove the malware by simply creating a new account and copying your documents over. It shouldn't be necessary to re-install the whole os + all your software.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Sancho]

It depends. If the virus infected executables in your home directory, you have to install clean copies of those. If you've EVER sudoed, you'll have to reinstall your OS to be sure.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for proving my point.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[CodeBuster]

Perhaps then it would be more productive for people like yourself to lobby the companies that make these products for Linux versions of the popular tools that you use and enjoy. Tell them that you want a Linux version and even more importantly, tell them how much you would be willing to pay for it if they produce one. If they get enough interest from the user community (pre-orders would help with this since money talks) then there will be a Linux version, but you have to make the business case to these companies if you want them to offer the Linux version.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Sycraft-fu]

At work it would be possible. There I do computer support so much of what I do is over the network. So long as I can do e-mail, web, SSH and RDP (all of which Linux does fine) I can do a good part of my job. I am responsible for the Windows labs at work, but those are done via VMWare which works under Linux (though we'd have to purchase Linux licenses, they aren't cross platform). The security DVR is IE only, so I couldn't use it remotely, but that's more a novelty than a genuine need. The only part that I'd enter in to real trouble with is video editing. I capture and edit class presentations for the web, and I've discovered nothing for Linux that does what it needed. This could be worked around since I can do it on another system.

The reason I haven't switched at work is primarily the lack of a reason to do so. I can do everything I need to on Windows, all of it. I have not found a single thing that has made me say "Man this would be easier if I had Linux." I just lack the reason to switch, and thus I haven't. At some point I may toy with it for a while just to learn more, but there's really no reason other than that.

Now at home, sorry, but Firefox isn't the issue (I use Firefox). One major issue is games. I am a computer gamer, it is what I like to do with my free time. I don't care if you don't think that's a good use of time, you don't get to make that determination. Well, very few games run on Linux. I've got a couple that will run naively, a few more that will run poorly under an emulator, and a good number that just won't. I refuse to switch if I can't have my games. Another problem is audio apps. I like to play with audio (specifically MIDI file renditions). I have found no software that is even remotely close to Sonar for Linux. Yes I've tried Ardour, no it isn't even close. All other issues aside (and there are many) it doesn't support MIDI sequencing which is one of the primary things Sonar does extremely well. There's also the issue of samples. I've got a few hundred dollars sunk in nice sample banks, unfortunately like most samples these days they are in Native Instruments format. That means you need an NI sampler (they include one) and that means Windows or MacOS ONLY.

So no, I don't need to go and install Linux and try it at home because I already know it doesn't have what I want. I want to play my games, first and foremost, and I just don't care if you don't like that. Thus until there's a solution to that, either because most games start having Linux ports or Linux gets an excellent Windows emulation layer, I just don't need to look at Linux for my home system as the answer will invariably be "It can't do what I want."

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[syousef]

Does anybody know what is the market penetration of Photoshop? 50%? 20%? 3%? of Windows users? Thanks!

Translation: I don't use it so I don't care about it. Others that use it can just suffer if we switch over.

Thanks for demonstrating the reason Linux hasn't taken off on the desktop: Attitude. What if the one user in your workplace that needs Photoshop happens to do something critical to the business with that software that can't be done with Gimp? The correct solution is to get Gimp up to the same standards before telling us how tired you are of hearing about it.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[BlueLightning]

If you think "Joe Bob" has $3000 to spend on a digital camera, you're deluding yourself.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Kalriath]

Considering people complain that Windows isn't Linux compatible, why exactly does the sword not cut the other way?

Both Linux and Windows should be interoperable. Period.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[ratboy666]

Ah.. I see.

I tend to separate "applications" and "games". If gaming is you bag, great, Windows is it.

I tend to disagree on the status of MIDI and Video editing (and screen capture demos) on Linux (Unix). But it's moot. For you, Windows (XP, Vista) is the choice.

Now, given that I *don't* play those sorts of games (I do play board, strategy and puzzle class games), and I am a developer (Solaris, Windows, Linux), Linux is the choice. Linux can run the Microsoft tool chain, and it's native tool chain. The Linux native tool chain is very compatible with Solaris.

And, it (Linux) has support for common "office" tasks. I keep Windows XP and Solaris 10 around as target platforms, but my primary is Linux.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[UserGoogol]

Monopolies are somewhat of an awkward middle ground between having open standards and having no standards at all. Although open standards would be ideal, "monopoly standards" give developers a relatively fixed target to shoot at when creating software and hardware. There are of course many disadvantages to an operating system monopoly and Microsoft has definitely shown these, but it's not all bad.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Sycraft-fu]

Well for audio apps, I'd love to see something that is the equal of Sonar. Not only in terms of what it can do but in terms of ease of use. Too many audio apps, free and commercial, are near impossible to use. Sonar is great, not to mention extremely feature laden. I've never seen any free app that comes even close to touching it. The samples are also a big problem. I lack the time and resources to go and create my own sample banks, so I'm going to be buying them. If you want to buy the really good samples, almost gareenteed they are in NI format which means you are going to need an NI sampler (it's a DRM'd format).

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Criton]

Openoffice is more compatible with MS office then the home version MS works is with it or older versions of office. Heck even KDE office works better then MS works. Remember Microsoft loves to break things just to force you to buy new software. I have been able to open most windows actually nearly all documents with no trouble with Mepis which is an unbuntu based distro with several improvements such as KDE as the default WM.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Criton]

Most graphics people use macs not windows as the windows version of photoshop is a crashing pile of crap. The windows side apps gimp has to compete against would be microsoft's god awful paint and draw apps which it happens to beat.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Criton]

If you are talking about photoshop pros then you are not talking about windows you are talking about mac OS and OSX as nearly all graphics professionals use macs. I wouldn't call the windows version of photoshop a professional tool by any standard as adobe for some reason can't write stable code on windows maybe the VM memory allocation in windows is just too broken and as screwed up and DRM happy as vista is don't expect it to be fixed anytime soon.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[tinkerghost]

"Paris Hilton looks more like Paris Hilton than any Paris-Hilton look-alike"

Interestingly enough, Charley Chaplin once came in 3rd in a Charley Chaplin look alike contest. Sometimes the original isn't everything we think it is.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[spk037]

i havent had to do anything particularily clever, no. for the few docs, OO works just fine. I have absolutely no problems opening docs and those that receive them from me do not have any probs opening mine. I do support and admin work in a largely 'nix enviroment. my work boxes are fedora 5 and 7. my home boxes are fed 6 and kubuntu 7.04.

I'm not much of a gamer, so i dont have any probs playing games. when my kids pcs inevitabley get hosed(they run windows of course) they dont have many problems using one of mine until i get a chance to reimage their box. they can chat, do their myspace thing, listen to music, go to all their regular sites. one of my boys does complain he cant play one of his games but somehow , im not all that concerned about that. I'll give ms their due, it is a nice little toy platform for playing games, but other than that, its crap.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[madgreek]

The professional graphics artist are primarily using the Mac.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[1u3hr]

nterestingly enough, Charley Chaplin once came in 3rd in a Charley Chaplin look alike contest. Sometimes the original isn't everything we think it is.

I recall claims that Windows apps ran better under OS/2 than Windows 3.1. And before that, that DR DOS ran better than MS DOS -- until Microsoft started specific checks to screw up things if it wasn't "really" MS DOS.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Grishnakh]

I'm not much of a gamer, so i dont have any probs playing games. when my kids pcs inevitabley get hosed(they run windows of course) they dont have many problems using one of mine until i get a chance to reimage their box. they can chat, do their myspace thing, listen to music, go to all their regular sites. one of my boys does complain he cant play one of his games but somehow , im not all that concerned about that. I'll give ms their due, it is a nice little toy platform for playing games, but other than that, its crap.

Why do you waste your time with Windows on your kids' machines? What's more, why do you pay for it?

You should be forcing your kids to earn their own money if they want Windows, and if Windows screws up and needs to be fixed, they should do it themselves. If they want your help, they should be using Linux. Beggars can't be choosers.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Grishnakh]

No, in the short term, the answer is for the business to pay up for Photoshop for that one user.

For everyone else, GIMP is good enough. Not everyone needs a Ferrari or Rolls-Royce, or can afford it, so most of us get by with cheap, crappy cars from companies like Lexus, Porsche, and BMW.

For those morons who "need" to have the software that "the pros" use, I think they should purchase (not pirate) Photoshop. I also think Adobe should jack up their prices, and eliminate their budget-priced version. I see nothing wrong with separating fools from their money.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[stix213]

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. That would be true if there were an equal number of Excel and Lotus 1-2-3 installations out there, but today there are virtual no lotus and a market dominating number of excel installations. Microsoft's products aren't considered the standard because they are any better, but because if you grabbed any random manager out there and needed to send them some type of data in a format that their software they are already using can understand... You can bet your ass that they can read Microsoft formatted documents. With a 90% chance that any random manager is running Windows on their desktop, it is silly to even consider that MS might not be a standard to need compatibility with.

An interesting analogy would be if you created a new type of car that was way better in every way, except that it was incompatible with your country's current highway system because it needed rubber roads instead of asphalt. Maybe your car is much more fuel efficient, maybe it is better for the environment, and maybe making rubber roads in the first place is more economical and last longer than asphalt roads... But, if your car isn't compatible with the current standard of asphalt roads it isn't going to be picked up. Just like not having the Linux desktop compatible with Windows, in as many ways as possible, will prevent it from being picked up as well.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[spk037]

good points. i have no good counter argument. I shouldnt and they should. one positive coming out of the current situation is they are being exposed to a quality OS and seeing that no matter what they do, dad's pc just keeps on going, unlike their own. Also, i was somehow smart enough to remember to image all their boxes so to restore to a pristine state only takes 15 mins tops

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[frank_adrian314159]

Since Windows is the dominant OS as of today it is only logical for another OS to have some form of compatibility with Windows.

Since MVS is the dominant OS as of today it is only logical for another OS to have some form of compatibility with MVS.

Wake me when...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this is a story about a "Linux heavy shop" and one guy has made the switch to Windows.

You know there's little hope when a Microsoft product name sounds sensible when compared with any in the Linux world.

Re:Wake me when...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in the process of trying to move to Windows from Mac OS X in a 100% Mac OS X work place. Does that count?

Re:Wake me when...

[RulerOf]

a 100% Mac OS X work place.

100%? So you work for Apple?

Re:Wake me when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it okay at Apple to use ms windows for everyday work?
What happened to the "eat your own food" motto?

Re:Wake me when...

[Criton]

Talk about a huge step backwards I'd never choose windows over OSX only reason I still keep windows around is games.

Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

I recently downloaded Ubuntu thinking I might do a dual-boot with Windows. But I didn't get past the first screen: drive partitioning. I'm reasonably computer savvy, but the partition utility left far too many unanswered questions: can I create a new partition on any of my drives without destroying the data that's there? How big should I make the partition? Can partitions be shared between OSs? The online help was useless, as was the most popular Ubuntu-For-Dummies style book at Borders. So I binned it.

Moral of the story is: the reason why Linux doesn't have a wide user base is because even though it is supposed to be the distro for noobs, it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[h4rr4r]

If you cannot handle this you should be buying PCs with the OS preinstalled. That is what Linux needs to have a wide user base anyway.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[sqrt(2)]

Strange, were you using 7.04? I remember, back before I reinstalled and went Linux only for this laptop, the default partitioning was setup to shrink my empty space of the windows partition and install Ubuntu on the freed space. Grub set up the dual booting (with Ubuntu as the default option) and both OSs booted and worked perfectly. I found myself booting into Windows less and less and about a month ago did a clean install selecting the second option, "Use entire hard disk."

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I'm reasonably computer savvy,

No - you're reasonably windows savvy. The rest of your post makes that abundantly clear.

Try dual booting between windows XP & Vista & you'll find that your lack of knowledge about partitions was the problem, not linux itself.

it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.

By your own account, you didn't actually use linux, just attempted to install it - so you've no basis to make that judgment.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbest troll EVAR!

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[nawcom]

Please don't take this as an offense at all. from what it sounds like, you seem to be reasonably windows savy, not reasonably computer savy. an easy to understand article on making linux partitions for the windows user (first one i found from a quick google search) : http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id =11859 yes, deleting your ntfs/fat windows partition will destroy the data. you can resize it, using an advanced partition tool like partition magic, acronis partitionexpert, parted, im sure theres a few more out there. yes, you can share partitions between operating systems. you just need to have it supported by the linux kernel, built in or via module. anyway, i understand what you meant when you said that linux doesnt have a wide user base. it began in the early 90s, its main "commerical" focus is on servers, and its designed by open source developers in favor of open source developers/users. things seem to be changing though; i believe this is one of the targets that the ubuntu distribution is aiming towards. i think certain distributions of linux are getting closer and closer to the moment where it will "just work" for users. no troubleshooting needed, no driver hacking needed, no debugging needed. this is why i usually don't suggest the basic end user to try any other linux distribution than ubuntu. ok. rant done. its what, 2:30am where i am? i wont blame you if this whole message doesnt make any sense. for im tired. and out of coffee.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

Fiddlesticks. It /is/ the distro for noobs -- just have a look at the Absolute Beginner Talk section of Ubuntu Forums for proof.
http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=73

Oh, and did you try the exact same test on Windows? Hm? Take an Ubuntu machine and try loading XP or Vista on it to dual boot? Good luck with that.

Now try the other way around, which nearly every single one of those noobs on ABT has done for their personal set-up. Which method is hard and under-documented again?

Troll-feeding done, I will agree that Ubuntu isn't all unicorn-flavoured ice cream. There are enought small trials that it is not "ready for the desktop" when that means ready-for-grandma-sixpack-flying-solo. And neither is Windows! You have to be very savvy to have a stable and secure Windows install. And at least with Ubuntu the system is secure while the user becomes a savvy personal computer user.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[clarkn0va]

the partition utility left far too many unanswered questions

True. I asked the same question when converting a Windows-only machine to a dual-boot.

it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.

This is a very Windows-centric conclusion, based on the generally needless assumption that "if it can't work with Windows, then it must not be any good"

Let's have a look at the problem from another angle: What if your computer had only Ubuntu, or BSD, or Solaris, or OS X on it and your friend recommended this great new 'Windows' product to you. How easily do you suppose the Windows XP installer would make it to get your computer dual booting?

Does your XP installer disk offer to repartition your disk and fully explain what will happen to your existing partition, along with the risks?

Does the XP installer detect what OSes are already on the computer and incorporate them into the boot menu?

Does the XP installer offer to import settings from the existing OS?

Will it mount all partitions with read/write support?

The argument that Ubuntu or any other Windows-competing OS is inferior simply because it has failed or threatened to fail to leave every brick of the Windows shrine untouched is both stale and lame.

db

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried the same on Windows? The Windows partitioning tools are pathetic, even Vista's. No help, no hints, and it's impossible to modify partitions non-destructively. You have to use third-party commercial (or Linux-based) tools to do it. The one in the Ubuntu installer is far superior.

Your answers are basically as follows:

Yes, you can create a new partition on any drive, without losing any data. The partitioner can automatically shrink partitions in various formats, including NTFS, to make room. On the Live CD, you can also shrink the partitions manually using the partitioning tool (System => Administration => GParted, I think).

The partitions can be as big or small as you want. If you're doing it manually (although you probably don't need to), you need a data partition (8GB is a good mininum, but you can just get away with 4GB), and a swap partition. A good rule of thumb for the swap partition is around 1.5 times the amount of RAM in the computer, but it need not be more than 1GB. I have a machine with 2GB of RAM, and a 4GB swap partition, but the swap partition is never used.

Windows will not read Linux partitions. There is an ext2fs driver for Windows that you can install if you want, which can read and write to ext3 partitions (the default in Ubuntu), but with no journaling. Linux has read-only support for NTFS. There is a read-write driver available as well, but it's more difficult to set up, and again doesn't have any journaling support.

The easy answer to all of this is that Ubuntu's installer has an automatic partitioning option. It will ask you how much space you want to use for Ubuntu, automatically resize your Windows partition, and create the appropriate Linux ones. Unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise, just let the installer deal with creating partitions for you.

It may not be useful if your existing partitions are unusual, but 99.9% of all Windows machines just have the one NTFS partition taking up the whole drive. In that case, the auto partitioner works perfectly. It also works perfectly in the case where you want Linux only, and want to erase the whole drive.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Chrisje]

Try installing Windows on a system that's got some linux on it, and you'll get really scared too. Many of the Linux installers I've tried (Caldera Suse, RHEL, Ubuntu 6.x) have been better than the Windows equivalent in terms of user-friendliness and tweakability.

The thing that really kills me about that is this: Suse or Red Hat are deemed Server-side Linux distros and are seen as overly complex by many. The installation procedure will allow you to pin point exactly which segments of which physical disk to use for certain things if you want to. People don't like it because it's too technically challenging.

Ubuntu doesn't ask that many questions from the get-go, because it's supposed to be a point 'n' click type of Linux distro, but then people turn around and don't like it because it doesn't present them with enough of a technical challenge.

But tell me, if you have a computer with physical disks 0 and 1, both of which have Linux Partitions on them, and you run the Windows installer to get it to dual boot, what will happen to:
- at least one of those disks
- the data on it
- your boot loader or the MBR if you're not careful

Yet Windows doesn't get binned. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-windows. I'm writing it on a Windows XP laptop which works beautifully for me. My other box is a Windows XP dual core box too, and the only non-windows computer in my personal household is a Nintendo Wii. And for the moment I am not interested in changing that, because I am a gamer.

But the reason the market at large won't adopt Linux for the desktop is simple. It's just that Windows is entrenched, and Linux isn't. So flaws of Windows are absolved to a large degree, while flaws in Linux get made into poster children for not moving from Windows. Such is human nature. In Holland we say "Wat de boer niet kent, vreet ie niet" which means so much as "What the farmer don't know, he don't eat".

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

You are completely right, I had a few thoughts about the original post but you pretty much said it all.

-Anonymous Coward #2

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[siyavash]

Your reply is exactly why Linux has not gained market share. Who are you to dictate HOW I should use my computer? Some kind of nazi? Come up with a super easy GUI solution instead of telling the guy to fuck off and sending him to mercy of the OEMs.

Funny how Linux people dictate MORE than Microsoft ever done to its users. Specially when someone is asking "Why can't I" usually he/she gets the answer "You don't need to" instead of actual help.

And funny how he actually "can handle" "this" with windows and not Linux. Funny how you tell him to go to OEMs instead of admitting Windows is easier and stronger in this matter since the user can do it "there" and not "here".

Score me -1, what the fuck do I care. My IQ is probably higher than 90% of you... god damn Linux religious zealots.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[thelastquestion]

isn't the act of failing to install what is supposed to be the most user-friendly linux distro proof that it isn't user-friendly enough for the mass market?

seriously, the best analogy I can think of at the moment for what you told the GP is if someone tries to turn on a car yet fails because they could not figure out how to do it, then they cannot talk about what it's like to use the car because they never drove it in the street, which makes no sense because they did try to use the car, the problem was the shitty design that prevented them from getting past step one to actually driving the thing.

and I realize that this is just one person that couldn't install linux, but then again, history tends to repeats itself. want proof? go look at some noob linux forums.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

The other responders have done a nice job of rushing to my defense, so I won't bother defending myself except to say that I did indeed use Ubuntu by running it off of the CD, which was very cool. But the reason I don't use Ubuntu is because there was no option to just put the CD in the drive, click 'OK' to the the "Do you want to set up a Dual Boot System?" and come back after making coffee to find everything done except maybe setting the time and the date. In my experience, installing Windows hasn't ever been much more complicated than that.

For all the linux fanboys out there, It's worth remembering that Linux doesn't just have to be user friendly to use in order to capture market share from M$, it has to be a one-click, no-brains migration process as well. So long as you don't have that, the evidence in the real world speaks for itself about Linux's failed strategy.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the same problems, managed to get past it by sticking it on an empty partition and praying it wouldn't wipe the other, the guide was very unclear on what it was going to do, however i gave up on ubuntu after having to use a text editor to get dual monitors working.

Unclear partitioning is not just a problem with Ubuntu, Vista is also very unclear when setting up partitions, doesn't seem like either were actually tested on a real user.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

The argument that Ubuntu or any other Windows-competing OS is inferior simply because it has failed or threatened to fail to leave every brick of the Windows shrine untouched is both stale and lame.

There is no argument, lame or otherwise. The evidence of Linux's failure to penetrate the mass market speaks for itself.

Linux has to do more than just be as good as Windows once it's installed. It has to actively capture market share. To do that, the migration process must be no more complicated than a single click: "Ubuntu has detected Windows XP installed on this system. Do you want to install a Dual Boot System?" Yes. Click. Done. If it's not as easy as that, guess what? No market share for you. Not yours.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[originalnih]

If I had mod points I would have modded you up for two insightful comments:

1. All of your post up to the last line
2. The last line of your post

Especially that second one. You computer nerds aren't always as smart as you think you are. A touch of humility might be what your sexual and social prowess lacks.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

99.9% of all Windows machines just have the one NTFS partition taking up the whole drive.

Actually, most new machines I see have a recovery partition. That's what I didn't want to mess around with. And no, there was no automatic partitioning option. I assure you, the following did NOT take place:

"Ubuntu has detected Windows XP installed on this system. If you would like to create a Dual Boot setup, click 'Create Dual Boot System' and Ubuntu will automatically partition your drives for you." Click. Done.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[xophos]

You might want to try Wubi. It's still beta, but reasonably safe, und you don't have to do Partitioning at all.
http://wubi-installer.org/
BTW: If you install Ubuntu the way one usually installs windows eg: Backup umportant data, Wipe Drive, Install, it is just as easy ;-)

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

In my experience, installing Windows hasn't ever been much more complicated than that.

That's because you're a troll - a sad, stupid troll at that.

Let me explain it in small words. You're comparing installing windows on a blank HDD, with installing linux on a drive shared with windows.

Installing windows on a HDD with an existing OS & preserving that OS is not easy, certainly not as easy as getting Ubuntu to coexist with other OSes.

By your standards, Windows isn't ready for the mass market (you dumbass).

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

It is true that Windows has advantages because it is entrenched, but that of course means a user-friendly Linux distro like Ubuntu must make migrating from Windows to Linux a one-click process. It isn't, and that is one major reason why Linux is not capturing market share from Windows.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

Calling me a stupid troll and a dumbass isn't helping Linux capture any market share, now is it?

The evidence speaks for itself: Linux can't even capture market share with its software by giving it away for free. In any other business on Earth, if you can't capture your competitor's customers by making your products free, it means there is something seriously,seriously wrong with your product. Call me names all you want, it won't make your wishful thinking a reality.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy's right. It doesn't exactly states what it's going to do. Shrinking a NTFS partition is a no-no for me, I wouldn't do that even if they told me that's safe. And the option for installing GRUB in another disk is so hidden and it's anything but self explanatory (not everyone could guess what hd0 or hd1 might be).

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Daengbo]

I'm going to go out on a limb and support the GP. There are several options for partitioning when installing. They are

• Guided -- Resize Master and use freed space
• Guided -- Use the entire disk
• Guided -- Use the largest continuous free space
• Manual

You apparently know little about partitioning yet chose to use "Manual." That's akin to the Windows users who know virtually nothing about the filesystem yet insist on changing the install path for every program they install. Why didn't you use the (chosen by default) setting which would have handled everything for you automatically? Were you trying to make your life more difficult?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[1arkhaine]

Okay, I've read a number of your comments to various people. I'll try to keep this flame free, because while I don't agree with what you are saying, I also don't think you are a fool.

That said - why do you want to be that babied by the install program?

I recently installed Ubuntu. Before that, I haven't ever used Linux. So, for me as much as yourself, the installation process was new when compared to what I had done with Windows. Yet I didn't have a problem. It was all quite clear and clearly explained. Perhaps a single button install would have been nice, but I had no problem with reading the installation help and tips to get me where I wanted to be - with an installation of Ubuntu on my computer, while keeping my windows partition.

I think asking for a single button install is almost an irresponsible thing for Ubuntu to do. Instead, it explains in clear, concise English what is happening to your computer. You are educated rather than babied. Isn't that better? Aren't we all adults here?

I certainly deplore the babying attitude you are championing. I don't want to have to install Gentoo (merely reading slashdot comments on it gives me shivers) but nor do I want big shiny buttons that do things for me without me knowing what has happened. I apply this to every aspect of my life, not just installing an operating system. Why don't you?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Iam9376]

There is no failure other than your misconception. You have to understand how Windows got to where it is today, and we have the deal with IBM to thank for that. Honestly, that's the only real reason why Windows was so popular, that, and there was really no other alternative at the time.

Regarding the 'failure to penetrate the mass market', well, also understand until as of late, there has not been BIG MONEY to promote linux on the desktop. and only this year has any MAJOR PC manufacturer started to ship with a linux based operating system.

And why does Linux have to be 'as good as Windows once was?'. Windows is a failure, [vista's/] it's penetration into the mass market speaks for that.

And again, why must it be like Windows? do you really think windows is *THAT* much easier than Linux alternatives? (or *BSD, etc), or perhaps is it just that you grew up on windows and are used to the way things work?

And I'll make you a deal, the day a Windows installer prompts you for "{Windows,Linux,*BSD,DOS, etc..} has been detected on your computer, would you like to setup multiple boot?" ill personally write the software to do the same. (though, not in GTK, as i prefer Qt and KDE vastly more :)

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite humorous when ignorant people think they're smart.

Why don't you try comparing the flexibility and utility of disk druid that is included with many distro installers to that of the XP installer. You can do much, much more with disk druid than you can with the XP partitioner. The Vista partitioner has even less power.

What escapes so many people is that knowledge is helpful when it comes to using your computer whether its Windows, Linux, or OS X. The more you know about how to use it, the more use you'll get out of it. It doesn't matter which OS you use. That being said, Linux will give you as much flexibility as you're willing to learn about. I've learned far more than the average use need know for a standard desktop. When something breaks, it's because I was screwing around with something that I haven't learned about. Something that I don't need to mess with, but rather, I mess with it because I want to learn how it works.

Disk druid is not an insanely difficult application to figure out. 5 minutes of Googling will give you your answer...or you could use the automatic option to use empty space...just a thought.

Oh, and it's just plain ignorant to refer to "Linux people". Yeah, go ahead and generalize. While you're at it, learn how to debate intelligently. Linux is far less restrictive. Try comparing the EULA for Vista with the EULA for any major Linux distro.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Calling me a stupid troll and a dumbass isn't helping

*shrug* I don't think anything I say is going to affect Linux's market share, but calling you a sad troll & a dumbass is both satisfying to me & educational to fellow slashdotters who otherwise might take you seriously.

The evidence speaks for itself: Linux can't even capture market share with its software by giving it away for free.

Nonsense. Linux occupies (or dominates) many computing markets (embedded devices, servers).

I don't think its any stretch of the imagination to say linux is the most widely installed general purpose OS (I bet you run it on your router without even knowing). Pointing out it hasn't made much inroads into Desktops (or mobile phones for that matter) doesn't change that.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[SanityInAnarchy]

the reason why Linux doesn't have a wide user base is because even though it is supposed to be the distro for noobs, it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.

You say this because you couldn't get partitioning to work. WTF?

Tell you what -- if you want to compare apples to apples, buy a Dell with Ubuntu pre-loaded. Or, if you're cheap, borrow a Geek to install it for you on a spare computer.

Then actually try it out -- yes, USE it, don't just try to install it. Actually, if you got as far as the partitioner, you could have done that anyway, as you're already in a LiveCD at that point.

And before you're done, borrow a Windows install CD -- any Windows, even Vista -- and see if it's any easier to repartition a Linux drive to make room for dual-boot Windows. I guarantee it will be harder, more frightening, more confusing, and probably not even possible.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

And no, there was no automatic partitioning option.

how long ago did you try ubuntu, because it's had such an option for 2 years or more. In fact, it's the default, and you have to choose a different option to get into the advanced partitioner you're complaining about.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Splab]

To be honest I don't think the linux crowd wants you. I bet you decided to do the advanced option and choose partitions yourself.

Ubuntus installer is by far the easiest to use in my opinion, and I know its shared by many people out there - if you got an empty drive or partition for it to set itself up on it does everything you want while you get your coffee.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Romancer]

This is the exact reason that people get put off using Linux. The response from most Linux users is condescension when people tell them that using Linux is too hard. You dismiss the users ability to use computers because he doesn't understand partitions and qualify his ability as only "Windows" proficiency. You fail to see that he has been using windows and didn't need to understand more about partitioning to get the tasks he uses his computer for done.

Why does someone who wants to use an OS for daily office tasks have to know more about partitions when using your operating system than they already know about your competitors. This is a major failing on the perspective of the "Linux pushers" that try and compare their software to others. You can have security, you can have multiple user level access, and you can have in depth micro options, as long as you can also get the job done.

In this case an unnecessary partition issue kept yet another user from switching and finding out how nice it is to have some control. The response to his lamenting? He is told: "You are the problem, not Linux." And the comment about dual booting another two operating systems, That's classic. Vista tells you that it will or won't work and makes most of the choices for you because they understand that you just want it to work. Any failings in that area you should be looking at to improve your Linux distro installer so that it's better than theirs, not pointing at them and saying that they don't do it better.

Come on. You don't think that you can make a perl script that chooses from a few parameters like drive size and used partition space and makes a reasonable judgement call. Put a "just make it work" button on the installer and tell noobs to click it if they want a dual boot with their old stuff accessable to both operating systems. I thought Linux was better.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you make one good point, and that is that dual boot isn't a good option, if you want Linux go buy a 250 dollar Eee PC when they get released.

But most people want to do have dual boot, but it is hard to do if you haven't done it before, I thought it was hard the first time I did it. That's why I haven't done dual boot installs much, they are a pain, and you get all nervous when installing. Now sure I've never lost any data from doing dual boot but I've lost lots and lots of time, and I've seen other people loose time over it. It sucks.

But you truly don't get it. You and everyone have a bad understandng of what is needed, and think we geeks are elitist for not helping you out more. But the problem is really hard to solve, and it's VERY unsexy and boring, it's not just newbies who hates to grub with MS filesystem, BIOS and partition tables. Can you understand why Linux/BSD folks aren't that happy with cleaning up after Microsofts mess?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible, but you have to repair the MBR, which requires you to get a linux live cd, boot it, boot into the grub command line, tell it what your root hd is (usually hd0), tell it what your boot partition is(usually hd 0,0), and then reinstall it.

It's basically impossible for someone who can't be bothered to look up how to partition his HD.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[dvice_null]

> Calling me a stupid troll and a dumbass isn't helping Linux capture any market share, now is it?

No, you are absolutely right. So here is a suggestion: Because you find Windows easier to use, create empty partition using Windows (Windows installation disk for example [I'm assuming it can do this, because you said it is easier to use.]) and once you have the empty partition created, installing Linux should cause you no problems. Simply select the partition, make few clicks and go get coffee. So your problem is now solved and you can start using Ubuntu if you really want to and assuming you were right about how easy it is to install/use Windows. If you were wrong about how easy it is to use Windows, then your options are more limited. Buy a new hard drive, ask someone more experienced to help you, or simply wipe out your existing hard driver to install something else on it.

> The evidence speaks for itself: Linux can't even capture market share with its software by giving it away for free.

Linux already has a market share. They don't have major market share, but they do have quite many users.

> In any other business on Earth, if you can't capture your competitor's customers by making your products free, it means there is something seriously,seriously wrong with your product.

Let's say that I present to you product A and product B. Product A is superior in every aspect to product B and you agree with this. But then I say that if you choose product B I will give you a huge amount of money. Would you now choose product A which is better, or product B, because you can live with it also and get a huge pile of money with it?

People opinions can be influenced. Either by threats or bribes. There are a lot of stories where Linux was considered to be used in a school/company/country, but then Microsoft appears and offers huge donations or threats, to keep them using Microsoft products. So it is not all about how good your product is.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the point a "just make it work" button would need a "WARNING you hard drive will explode" label.. Mac OS X and Windows has such a button but you don't really see the warning, this has bitten alot of people and they get told that they are stupid my Mac and Win ppl. You are telling me it's bad that people are scared of by an operation that is highly volatile, and perhaps damaging not only to your data but to the Linux of as well?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[aaronl]

Go try to install Windows on a hard drive. The second question it asks is about a fresh install versus a recovery. Will a fresh install trash your data? It doesn't say for sure. Next it asks about partitions, but doesn't tell you what happens if you do things, or what a partition is.

The Windows installer has less documentation than the Ubuntu installer. It *can't* resize a partition, and it has absolutely no online help. It makes no attempt to dual-boot with another OS. It can't share partitions between OS'. I'm guessing that you manage to use Windows, even though it has all the same problems in the installer as Ubuntu, and even though it is actually less clear about what is going on.

This isn't to say that Ubuntu couldn't be improved, because it certainly can be. I'm just saying that your excuses for not even getting through the first, incredibly basic, and very well documented step goes to show that you are certainly *not* reasonably computer savvy. I thought the installer was pretty obvious about what was going on, but I'm computer savvy, and wanted to do the partitions manually anyway. I also know a good amount about how my computer works, already.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[turing_m]

'Linux has to do more than just be as good as Windows once it's installed. It has to actively capture market share. To do that, the migration process must be no more complicated than a single click:"Ubuntu has detected Windows XP installed on this system. Do you want to install a Dual Boot System?" Yes. Click. Done. If it's not as easy as that, guess what? No market share for you. Not yours.'

That's setting the bar ridiculously high if capturing market share is all that's required. For a Windows power user, or Admin, Ubuntu as it currently stands is easy. And for the regular users, it is adequate if they can either buy a new computer with Ubuntu or they have a skilled friend.

Instead, there are two important metrics that will determine whether or not Ubuntu (or anything else) starts to take market share.

1) The rate of defection of Windows users to non-MS operating systems.
2) The rate of failed defections.

People leave MS for a variety of reasons. Some reasons include price, vendor lock in, dislike of MS business practices, limitations of MS operating systems in their area of interest, obsolescence of XP (and forced "upgrade" to Vista and associated drop in productivity as new methods are learned), idealogical reasons for open source, etc.

This rate is very likely to be a lot higher than the actual loss of MS market share to date would indicate. And the reason for that is because the rate of failed defections (#2) has been very high. It's a bit like a loser and an attractive girl stuck on a desert island. He thinks she's faithful, despite her markedly increased interest in boat building, long distance swimming and arranging every stone on the island to form a big "SOS". As soon as a boat comes anywhere near the island, she defects for good.

A drop in the rate of failed defections will spell disaster for MS. It's typically power users, admins, programmers and smart kids who will defect. If they stay in linux land, all sorts of wondrous network effects start happening. These people write howtos for others to lower the IQ bar. Others write GUI frontends to speed the process further. Others include these gui frontends in the default install. Many of these people will install some sort of non-MS on a friend's computer.

As the rate of failed defections reaches rock bottom, the rate of defection starts to rise, major PC manufacturers start shipping with default non-MS OS... and you can do the math from there.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[ricree]

The point you're missing here is that the fault is clearly with you, not Linux. For a fair comparison, I'd suggest starting with a single boot linux computer and trying to add windows as a dual boot. From what I've heard, it is certainly going to be harder than the reverse. Like others have said, there are quick and easy choices, but apparently you couldn't get those either. That's fine, most people just aren't able to deal with installing operating systems and partitioning hard drives, but that is what preinstalled machines are for. However, you seem insistent on setting up lopsided comparisons and creating expectations for Linux that aren't even remotely what you ask for from windows. Those are the sorts of reasons that you are rightly being called a troll.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[vux984]

The sad part is, if you had Ubuntu, and you wanted to try out windows, it would have been an order of magnitude LESS clear what was going to happen in terms of partitions, your existing data, and your existing OS.

Would you have then binned windows and claimed that it clearly wasn't ready to be a desktop for the mass market? Would you have found much help to these dual boot questions in the Windows online help? or in the Windows for Dummies book? Its almost comical to even think about it!!

Dual booting OSes is inherently more complex, especially off a single hard disk that is ALREADY partitioned, especially with windows which is particularly bad at cohabitating with other OSes, ...

You've set the bar for Linux mighty high...much higher than you've set even for Windows.

Seriously; give Ubuntu a try on equal footing. Toss in a 2nd hard drive, unplug your windows one to be absolutely sure it can't be affected, and install ubuntu just as you'd install windows; I think you'll find it surprisingly simple, easy, and friendly.

Later on you can plug the other HD back in and configure a boot loader to select OSes... or if you have a decent modern bios you can have it prompt you which drive to load from at the push of a key during the POST.

FWIW I concede that the complexities of dual booting are an obstacle to wider linux experimentation, but there is no easy way to resolve them.

Your looking at a system that's already got windows installed, an os that's fairly hostile to dual booting except when installed as an upgrade to a previous version of itself (and even then there are caveats). Not only that you've got pile of valuable data that must not be lost. And all available hard drive space is a already allocated to Windows... and then you cry foul when the Linux installation is a little bit complex; as it suggests resizing partitions and allocating itself some space without being absolutely clear that your data won't be lost (which is never an absolute guarantee when resizing partitions...)

But you want to know what would happen if you tried to install windows on a system fully allocated to Linux? It simply would tell you there was no room on the disk unless you erased and reformatted it. Cancel or Allow. Or press "L" to bring up the partition manager where you can create your own...although since it can't resize partitions, your down to deleting at least of of the linux partitions. (That's XP, although even Vista isn't much better.)

You tell me which OS deserves to be binned!

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[gujo-odori]

OK, it's about a three-click process, and it will automatically partition your disk for you if you're not sure what to do. Safely? In my experience, yes. Should you do that without a backup? No, of course not. Have I done it without a backup anyway? Yes, but don't try this at home. Even though the systems in question were on a large UPS and one was also a notebook for even one more level of protection, it's not a good practice. I did it only because both were freshly installed and patched XP installs and it was my opinion that if something broke, doing it over again was probably no bigger
of a deal than backing them up first.

So, a few clicks, and Kubuntu was installed and dual-booting on both of them. No problem.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[flyingfsck]

So stop moaning and install Mandriva. Mandriva has been around much longer than Ubuntu and is very slick. Or if you are a true masochist and want to moan even more, install Slackware. Slackware has been around forever and is still just as clunky as in the beginning. My point being that there is a Linux system for all levels of incompetence...

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[unapersson]

You don't need any knowledge of partitions at all. You just run the installer and tell it to use the whole hard disk. What could be simpler than that? Not any different to installing a Windows PC from scratch.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[MPAB]

Back when I was trying out Red Hat (and also Fedora C1 and C2), I was forced to use Partition Magic under Windows not just to shrink the FAT32 partitions, but also to create the EXT ones because whenever I told the RH installer to create an EXT partition on the free space it would also modify the FAT32 one to the point of making it unreadable. That's why I decided not to use the linux embedded partitioner again when creating a double boot system.

Now I'm on a double boot XP and Ubuntu 7.04. Each time there's a kernel update, the Updater re-creates the GRUB to uptate the kernel list and erases XP from the list. Now it forces me to sudo and etc, but what happens to people that now almost nothing about command line and relies on XP while still testing Ubuntu? If there's such a fuss over the fact that installing Windows makes it take over the boot, what could I say about it happening each time Ubuntu updates itself?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[janrinok]

You have quoted 'capturing market share from Windows' in several posts in this thread. I have the following to offer.

Linux is not trying to capture market share. If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, stay with Windows. It is not a competition. I don't care what Microsoft does as long as I am free to use the OS of my choice.

There are more Linux users today than ever before. Some of them have ditched Microsoft's offerings completely. I am one of them. Therefore, Linux is 'capturing market share' from Windows. However, a great many users have dual-boot (and so still have a registered copy of Windows) and some have more than one machine (with perhaps different OS on each). The figures are therefore skewed but, as the figures are unimportant, who cares about them? I repeat, it is not a competition. But if every computer was sold with a blank hard drive, which do you think most people would end up installing? Do you think that they would still be content to fork out wads of cash if they have to install Windows from scratch?

Don't compare Linux with Windows. It is not meant to be the same or even similar. That is one of the main reasons for people changing from Windows to Linux. I do not believe that Windows is any kind of yardstick against which to measure OS. But, if you are incapable of installing Linux (either in single OS mode or dual boot) then you are not ready for Linux. It is not because Linux is not ready - the limitation is your capabilities and not those of the software.

There is room for both Windows and Linux in the world. Make your choice based on what the software offers and your ability to install it and use it.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Ash-Fox]

Actually, most new machines I see have a recovery partition. That's what I didn't want to mess around with. And no, there was no automatic partitioning option. I assure you, the following did NOT take place:

"Ubuntu has detected Windows XP installed on this system. If you would like to create a Dual Boot setup, click 'Create Dual Boot System' and Ubuntu will automatically partition your drives for you." Click. Done.

Nope, you should of got three options (under Ubuntu and Kubuntu) like:

• Use entire disk space
• Resize windows partition and install
• Custom

The second one would of been checked by default in such a situation.

You are correct however, there is no question about setting up dual boot, but it doesn't matter since when Ubuntu/Kubuntu installs the bootloader, the update-grub program scans the partitions for Windows installations and sets them up automatically in Grub.

I don't see the issue in your complaint.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Ash-Fox]

"Ubuntu has detected Windows XP installed on this system. Do you want to install a Dual Boot System?"

Ubuntu/kubuntu do this automatically without asking when the bootloader is installed.

If it's not as easy as that, guess what? No market share for you.

It's easier actually. Sorry, the 'issue' to solve that you mention doesn't seem to be working, try again.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Ash-Fox]

Why does someone who wants to use an OS for daily office tasks have to know more about partitions when using your operating system than they already know about your competitors.

Yes, why does Windows require me to know more exactly about partitions than Ubuntu/Kubuntu does? I can just click the resize partitions option (selected by default when it sees Windows partitions, so you can just push 'next' anyway) and install the OS needed, it'll even setup dual boot...

But then, try installing Windows for daily office tasks on a Ubuntu/Kubuntu system, where is the resize option? What is a unknown partition type?

If you figure this out and resize the partition in Linux so you can install windows along side with your Ubuntu/Kubuntu install, where did Linux go after installing it?
Where is the dual boot menu?
Where is the Windows application, registry entry, configuration file for setting up the Linux dual boot under Windows even?

You fail to see that he has been using windows and didn't need to understand more about partitioning to get the tasks he uses his computer for done.

I didn't see a need to understand partitioning with the Ubuntu/Kubuntu installer, I did for the Windows installer.

He is told: "You are the problem, not Linux."

No, he has been told that Windows is more difficult to setup with preinstalled Linux system than Windows being preinstalled and Linux being setup after.

Come on. You don't think that you can make a perl script that chooses from a few parameters like drive size and used partition space and makes a reasonable judgement call. Put a "just make it work" button on the installer and tell noobs to click it if they want a dual boot with their old stuff accessable to both operating systems. I thought Linux was better.

Here is the thing, Ubuntu/Kubuntu already do this, it's been in the installer for ages.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[kaiwai]

Which would involve making very dangerous assumptions on the installers/developers part over the state of the computer.

Its up to YOU as a user to partition your computer - its not up to Ubuntu to make generalised assumptions on what you want to do with your computer.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely pathetic; you call yourself 'technically knowledgeable' and can't even follow the most basic of partitioning tools included with the Ubuntu installation - do us all a favour, put that computer in a box, send it back to the manufacturer and purchase a type writer. Obviously you don't have the cranium capacity of being able to do some reading, learning and actually putting your brain into gear.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Ash-Fox]

But the reason I don't use Ubuntu is because there was no option to just put the CD in the drive, click 'OK' to the the "Do you want to set up a Dual Boot System?" and come back after making coffee to find everything done except maybe setting the time and the date. In my experience, installing Windows hasn't ever been much more complicated than that.

Err... For Ubuntu and Kubuntu, Just open the install icon on the desktop, click next all the way except where it asks you to enter your user credentials, machine name and timezone information and done.

The default options selected in the installer are to resize the windows partition, install it. The boot loader updater program is set to automatically probe all partitions for other OS installations and set it up in the bootloader, so dual boot is ready out of the box.

Ubuntu will even give you a migration manager to migrate your settings from Windows such as bookmarks, documents etc.

For all the linux fanboys out there, It's worth remembering that Linux doesn't just have to be user friendly to use in order to capture market share from M$, it has to be a one-click, no-brains migration process as well.

I honestly don't believe you tried Ubuntu from your descriptions.

So long as you don't have that, the evidence in the real world speaks for itself about Linux's failed strategy.

That's great and all, except the issues you complained about, don't exist.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

"In my experience, installing Windows hasn't ever been much more complicated than that."

Consider yourself lucky, you seem to be an exception. In my experience and that of most of the staff here no operating system is more troublesome to set up than Windows - and the shocking thing: From 98 to XP it actually got worse, not better. The XP installation does not even have a remotely functional hardware detection. It doesn't offer S-ATA support. The first portion of the installer doesn't even have bloody NTFS support. Ever tried to set up XP from the hdd? We almost went nuts over this oh so simple task.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

See my other posts about the fact that if Linux wants a share of the desktop market migration and dual-boot must be a one-click, no-brains process.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

I honestly don't believe you tried Ubuntu from your descriptions.

Shucks, you got me. I made the whole thing up.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

Ubuntu/kubuntu do this automatically without asking when the bootloader is installed.

And, apparently, without saying so. Had I known I could magically trust Ubuntu to set up a dual-boot system without borking my existing Windows install or my recovery partition, I might have just clicked 'OK'. But, sadly, there is no mention of ANY of this on screen OR in the newbie help files online OR in the common for-dummies references. It took a Linux-savvy expert like yourself to provide crucial information that any normally intelligent person would automatically know users would absolutely require in order to make a system-critical decision. Why this information is not presented in the install itself, I cannot imagine - except, I suspect, that it is designed and written by people who fail to understand the position and viewpoint of non-experts. I believe the historical evidence will show my suspicion to be correct.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[replicant108]

An even easier and less risky way to try Ubuntu is to use Wubi

How does Wubi work?

Wubi adds an entry to the Windows boot menu which allows you to run Linux. Ubuntu is installed within a file in the windows file system (c:\wubi\disks\system.virtual.disk), this file is seen by Linux as a real hard disk.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[the_womble]

it has to be a one-click, no-brains migration process as well.

That is a ludicrously high bar. No OS has one click install, let alone migration. Not Linux, not MacOS, and certainly not Windows.

It you are not comfortable installing an OS, either buy a PC with the OS you want pre-installed, or get someone else to install it for you. Neither is very difficult to do for Linux.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Greg_D]

Bullshit you don't. Mr. McBob gets a nice, shiny Ubuntu disk because he hears how great it is. He doesn't know much about computers, but hey, you have to deal with those sorts of people when you're trying to build a market share. Mr. McBob has all sorts of family pictures, old emails, a contact book, and some of his financial records stored on the system.

Now, should Mr. McBob just toss the disk in and partition the drive? Most users who have no knowledge of partitioning would assume that if they're installing Ubuntu on their systems, that it would non-destructively partition the drive so that they can use all their existing data.

Imagine how pissed he's going to be when he realizes it just ate the pictures he took from his grandchild's first birthday, his last trip to Aspen, and his financial records from the last few years. Think he's going to be happy with his Ubuntu experience?

The differences are that (a) Windows already comes preinstalled on almost every system on the planet, (b) if you're reinstalling Windows, your system is probably so hosed that you can't get to the data anyway, and (c) Ubuntu and other Linux distros want to get people to SWITCH, which means that they have to go from what they already have to something new, which they wouldn't have to do in (a).

If you've spent any time in a real work environment, you know that most people are totally freaking oblivious to computer technology beyond what they absolutely have to do with the systems. If you want to get the average joe to switch, then you have to give him incentive to beyond the "free software" mantra, and giving him a tool as powerful and complex as disk druid is NOT a way to endear him to your cause.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Ash-Fox]

Why this information is not presented in the install itself

Good point, I've sent in a bug report as this is obviously a flaw.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

I appreciate the polite tone and candor of your post - infinitely superior to most of the tripe that's been posted. My responses:

why do you want to be that babied by the install program? You are educated rather than babied. Isn't that better? Aren't we all adults here? ... nor do I want big shiny buttons that do things for me without me knowing what has happened. I apply this to every aspect of my life, not just installing an operating system. Why don't you?

I have something that already works and that I'm familiar with - Windows. I have only one problem with it: I don't like supporting the 800lb gorilla when there's an underdog to cheer for. I'd like to be babied with a no-brains setup for the same reason that I prefer GUI to command-line interfaces: it makes my life easier. I'd like my 87-year-old grandfather, whose pretty Windows-savvy, to be able switch without worry he's going to lose the thousands of digital pictures he's lovingly taken and arranged in Picassa. I have no pressing need to be educated about drive partitions and bootloaders, just as I have no pressing need to memorize DOS commands - I already have something that works, and if I'm going to switch it had better be easy for me. When I was younger, learning all of the technical mumbo-jumbo would have been a pleasure in itself, but it's not the kind of thing I like to do in my precious-little free time anymore (unlike posting and debating on Slashdot).

I put the Ubuntu disk in and the answers weren't immediately apparent to the questions I had, so I spent 3 minutes looking for the answers on Ubuntu's help pages with no luck, so I abandoned the effort because at that point it was no longer worth it for me. I didn't find the information I needed nearly so easily as you apparently did, and the risk of losing the work data on my laptop was too high to make any kind of gamble. weeks later, out of curiosity, I opened a Ubuntu For Dummies style book in the bookstore to see if the answers to my questions were in there, and they weren't.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

Linux is not trying to capture market share.

I think 99% of the people who support Linux would disagree with you.

if you are incapable of installing Linux (either in single OS mode or dual boot) then you are not ready for Linux.

I imagine that Bill Gates and Microsoft would not have created the world's most profitable company if they shared that snotty, arrogant, thoughtless, antagonistic attitude. Maybe that's why they're so much more successful than Linux?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[1arkhaine]

I think it's important to remember that just because I disagree with you doesn't make you (or me!) an idiot. A trap far too many people fall into on Slashdot and elsewhere...

Anyway. I understand what you are saying about grandfathers. I have one just like that, except he is 76. Same basic concept, he wants reassurance that his photographs/etc won't be lost. I understand that completely. Granted, I backed everything up (and have since gone to a full Ubuntu install), so for me, if it all went haywire, I wouldn't have minded.

And that's probably where we are sensing a problem. I didn't care if I lost it all, so I was perhaps a little more hasty (reckless?) with accepting options and taking the suggestions presented to me. If it didn't work, I didn't care. But it did, so I was happy. In my experience of the installation, I felt that I was presented with exactly enough information to give me the confidence to forge ahead with putting Ubuntu on my laptop. If I hadn't back everything up, though? I can't say - but perhaps I would have made absolutely sure that everything was going to be fine.

So I wonder if it's a babying situation, or more that a geek attempting to install Ubuntu/whatever would have everything backed up, and possibly even be installing Linux on another computer to try it all out first? If that's the case, it's easy to just forge ahead and take what comes. But for someone who hasn't, or can't, or doesn't want to back up or sort all of that out, perhaps it is a lot more frightening. I can't say, as that wasn't how my installation worked. But it makes sense that you could see it that way.

I wonder how Ubuntu could address this? I suppose it's a pretty fine line between huge shiny buttons and clear indications of 'expert' level settings. Hopefully it is something they can improve in another version, I don't know.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

why must it be like Windows? do you really think windows is *THAT* much easier than Linux alternatives? (or *BSD, etc), or perhaps is it just that you grew up on windows and are used to the way things work?,

I grew up driving in cars with a steering wheel, accelerator, brake, clutch and gearshift. If you want me to switch to a different brand of car, don't complain when I say I'm not keen on it because I have to steer your car with my feet and operate the accelerator and brake with a joystick. If you want me to use your product instead of the one I'm already familiar and happy with, you'd better bend over backwards to make it easy for me.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

if you had Ubuntu, and you wanted to try out windows, it would have been ...

Yeah, but see, the thing is, I don't have Ubuntu and want to try out Windows. So guess who the onus is on?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bert64]

Windows does the partitioning thing during install too, only it's implementation is much worse than Ubuntu's... (it was in XP, vista might be better)
Try instaling windows dual boot on a system which already has linux installed, windows will always render the existing os unbootable, and will not let you resize partitions without losing all the data on them. Infact, it's geared up to make a single huge partition on the drive, which defeats the point of partitions completely.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bert64]

The partition problem is one he would have if he tried to install windows himself, he doesnt have it because it came preinstalled.
If you want to try Ubuntu on a level playing field with windows here, i hear Dell have a nice line of machines with Ubuntu preinstalled.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

I wonder how Ubuntu could address this? I suppose it's a pretty fine line between huge shiny buttons and clear indications of 'expert' level settings. Hopefully it is something they can improve in another version, I don't know.

Now that's an attitude I like: what are the solutions?

I think a good start would be an interactive walkthrough on their website - like a little flash wizard/guide for the most common install scenarios. Traditional help files are fine, but it's easy to get stuck if you can't find an answer to a question you have. It's like the different between having a guide take you somewhere and have to get there on your own with a map. While I often prefer a map, I think in risky situations I'd go with a guide.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[GreyWolf3000]

The evidence of Linux's failure to penetrate the mass market speaks for itself.

Who set this goal? Who said, by Month X, Day Y, of year 200 and Z, Linux must have some percentage of market share, or else it has 'failed'?

Take a look at Ubuntu's mission statement. They want to create a distribution of Linux that is usable by the masses. My brother just installed Ubuntu and he's been on Windows for years. He's slowly but surely ramping up to the proficiency he had in Windows.

The community makes Linux what it is. If you really had a problem with figuring out how to dual boot, then you can always file a bug report, and if enough people have a similar difficulty, it will change. If you don't, then nobody can really help you, and you're just armchair-whining. Ubuntu is provided free of charge, backed by a company but largely developed by a community. There are forums where you can post your problems and get help without being mocked for your ignorance--free support!

Linux does not have to actively capture market share. It is not automatically superior to Windows. I like it because I can solve problems by understanding their causes, as opposed to sifting through dialog boxes to find the magic check box that will make the problems go away. You don't have to use it. And if all you're going to do is complain that Linux hasn't made itself easy enough for you, and you're not going to file bug reports or do anything about it, then by all means, enjoy your Windows.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[vux984]

So guess who the onus is on?

You.

The onus is on you to provide a disk with space on it if you don't want to worry about any impact on your existing installed system.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Orkie]

See the other post(s maybe, I only saw one) which told you to try installing Windows after Ubuntu - you'll find it much harder than the other way around.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[ddrichardson]

No the problem isn't with Ubuntu. Its with the vast number of people who expect to be hand held through every painfully simple step. If the roles were reversed you'd be complaining that Windows isn't ready for the mass market because it overwrites the MBR with its own bootloader. The online help isn't useless - its like everything else in Ubuntu, written by volunteers rather than by a team of paid technical writers as it is with Windows. There is a massive step by step guide to dual booting that covers all the aspects you mention on the Live CD and this has been improved for the upcoming 7.10 release.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[SwedishPenguin]

isn't the act of failing to install what is supposed to be the most user-friendly linux distro proof that it isn't user-friendly enough for the mass market?
No. Is the fact that 90% of computer users can't install Windows proof enough that Windows isn't friendly enough for the mass market?
This is a guy who thinks himself a computer wizard, yet he doesn't understand basic partitioning. If he had put aside all his 1337 skillz in computers and selected the option of letting the installation program handle the resizing of his windows partition and partitioning of his Ubuntu partitions, he would be up and running by now.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want me to use your product instead of the one I'm already familiar and happy with, you'd better bend over backwards to make it easy for me. This is what drives me nuts about people who want to use linux. If you want the same thing as Windows, use Windows! Linux is not Windows and never will be Windows, its different. If you want to try something different try linux.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[1arkhaine]

That could help, but it also implies that the person installing Ubuntu would have another computer handy to check websites and all that.

Perhaps another solution could be a 'case study' situation, where the Ubuntu installation screens have a button (or an automatic pop-up in a corner, I don't know) that says 'Bob wants to do x with his computer, so he chooses option A' or some such. It'd have to be plainspeak not geekspeak, but that shouldn't be a problem with Ubuntu anyway.

I guess an issue that arises from methods such as that is - why not just have the big shiny button in the middle of the screen? If it solves all of the problems for most of the people, then it's useful. Someone who wants more advanced options can selected it from an unobtrusive but visible button/menu/whatever. Even a timed 'You seem to be taking a while to select your options, do you need more help?' pop up box could be handy.

Argh, seems I've flipped within three comments. Ah well. Seems to me that it's more important to have my sister or mother on Ubuntu than it is to make it difficult and scary.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is that neither Linux distributors nor Microsoft can or will guarantee the user that his existing data will not be damaged. If Microsoft does not provide any legal safety net, why would you expect Ubuntu to do so?
At least, the Ubuntu installer tries to shrink the existing partitions to make room for its own. You cannot expect this from the Redmond products as long as Windows is dominating the desktop OS market.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[turing_m]

Ah, the internet... where men are men, women are men, children are FBI agents and rich, successful, good looking guys with gorgeous wives spend their free time trolling on slashdot.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

It already does. You claim to know nothing about partitioning, but you deliberately went and selected the "manual partitioning" option, then complained that it doesn't work, it's too hard, that nobody should have to know how anything works, and that the manual option should have done everything automatically (which is what the default automatic option does), then start making grand proclamations that, because you couldn't be bothered to read a simple screen and automatically selected the hard option, Linux is not ready for general use. Then bitch at anyone who says you shouldn't have selected "manual partitioning".

I posted a clamer response explaining this earlier, which seems to have been modded down into oblivion for no good reason. That was before you started acting like a spoilt brat though.

It's quite possible that the automatic partition options were unavailable on your machine. That would happen if your partition layout is significantly different than normal. In that case, what do you expect the installer to do? It's not psychic, so it can't possibly know what strange customizations or modifications you've made to your own partitioning scheme. Nor should it - if you're capable enough to have a really weird partition layout, you're capable enough to figure out how you want to modify it.

Just remember that Windows' installer completely chokes on anything more complex than a blank drive, or a single drive with a single Windows partition on it that you want to override.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm rich, successful, good looking and have a model-gorgeous wife [...]

What the hell are you still doing on Slashdot then? Maybe you're not the one you pretend to be.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[supervillainsf]

I don't know if you actually care, but here goes:

can I create a new partition on any of my drives without destroying the data that's there?

I find gparted to work well for creating new partitions on windows disks. There is a live CD available on sourceforge (gparted.sourceforge.net I believe). I find it more intuitive than most linux install disks and my personal preference is to have the partitions set up prior to installing a second OS. Someone above mentioned that you are creating the partition based on available space, so obviously if you have no space, you can't create the partition.

How big should I make the partition? Can partitions be shared between OSs? Depends on how much you are going to install, how many disks you have and what you think you might do with the machine. On my dual boot machine with one HD, I have something like 3 gigs for windows, 20 gigs for CentOS and the rest is a NTFS partition that is mounted at boot time to hold files that I share between the OSs(music, video, etc). However, I am not a huge windows user and primarily use Linux, so if you are going to use windows most, you will probably want to set up your machine differently.

As for the moral of the story, dual booting, while overall fairly easy, might not be the best way to start off. Try taking an old machine that runs like a dog with XP and load Ubuntu on that. I think you will be suprised at how fast it will run. You will also have the flexiblity to break your Linux box (and if you keep using it, you probably will at some point) and not be SOL. When I started I didn't have a second computer, so I ended up booting into windows to search for stuff online and then needed to reboot into Linux try the fix, find it didn't work, reboot to windows, read some more, and so on. Luckly I was in between jobs and had too much time so... Also, I found (and still find) IRC to be a huge help. There are very knowlegable and usually helpful people on most times who can at least give you a direction if not an answer to solve many problems. Also the man pages are your best friend.

Good Luck

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[generic]

I did this on a new laptop with vista, it now boots Ubuntu and linux, it worked just fine. I do admit I have been a Unix admin for 13 years now.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[TheRaven64]

What if your computer had only Ubuntu, or BSD, or Solaris, or OS X on it and your friend recommended this great new 'Windows' product to you. How easily do you suppose the Windows XP installer would make it to get your computer dual booting? With OS X it's actually very easy. Bootcamp will allow you to re-partition your disk by just dragging a slider to divide the disk between OS X and Windows, install XP, install all drivers required for the Mac you using, and set up dual boot. Why is this possible? Because Apple know HFS+ and the bootloader very well and so it's fairly easy for them to make something that will move from a single-boot to a dual-boot configuration. It is much easier to write a tool to allow your OS to co-operate with another than it is to write a tool to force another OS to co-operate with you.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Kattspya]

If you didn't manage to use your computer by yourself then someone needs to dictate something...

I set up dual boot with Ubuntu version 5.04 and my knowledge wasn't that great and still isn't (I managed to nuke my install while doing a dist upgrade). I had only read one book about general Linux and GNU history and basic CLI usage. I didn't have a problem googling the information I needed to find out what to do. In my case I had to use partition magic (something else might work) to repartition my harddrive because I didn't have any unpartitioned space and didn't want to nuke my drive. Apart from that the most difficult thing was finding out which partition was which.

It's not exactly rocket science and if you can't figure that stuff out you're not as smart as you think or your google and forum skills are somewhat deficient.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

From their homepage:

"Wubi is Discrete - Wubi keeps most of the files in one folder, and If you do not like, you can simply uninstall it." Discrete? Discreet? Could be either - my head hurts!

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[thegnu]

I'm reasonably computer savvy, but the partition utility left far too many unanswered questions:

Doesn't it have a selection that's labelled "Recommended" that says automatically resize Windows partition and migrate data? Why not try this recommended option?

And, as many point out, you use Windows because it's preinstalled. You would struggle more with the Windows (pre-vista, anyway) install than the Ubuntu install, because they just drop you in a text-based menu where you can delete and create partitions.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[TheRaven64]

Last time I checked, the Windows installer did not allow you to re-size an existing partition; even FAT or NTFS, let alone something like ext2/3 or UFS. The only options were to delete existing partitions, create partitions in free space, and install to an existing (FAT or NTFS) partition. During the install it would then replace the contents of the MBR.

The best way to install Windows on a system that already has an OS to create a dual-boot configuration is to start with a Mac, and use Bootcamp. The second-best solution is to:

1. Install your boot loader in the partition boot record.
2. Re-partition the system in the existing OS.
3. Copy the partition boot record to an external disk.
4. Install Windows in the empty space.
5. Copy the partition boot record to the Windows partition and add an entry in c:\boot.ini pointing to it.

Is this user friendly? Hell no.

Let's try making this a level playing field according to Bombula's definition of level, and assume that the computer already had Windows installed, and you wanted to dual-boot. I used to do this with Windows 9x and NT4. It worked really well, until IE4 came out. Then, both operating systems decided they wanted to install incompatible versions of the same files in c:\Program Files\ and managed to damage each other to the point where 9x wouldn't boot. It worked fine for dual-booting NT4 and DOS though...

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[thegnu]

The evidence speaks for itself: Linux can't even capture market share with its software by giving it away for free.
Go to Circuit city, and look at all the new IBM terminals littered through the store. Linux. Go to Brazil, and all their fucking ATMs? Linux. "Linux" can't capture market share because "Linux" isn't a singular entity.

In any other business on Earth, if you can't capture your competitor's customers by making your products free, it means there is something seriously,seriously wrong with your product.
Ask Judd if Arch Linux is a failure. It runs on all his servers, and plenty of other people's servers, too. Ubuntu is capturing market share. Just because you define market share as how often you think about different products doesn't make it so.

Call me names all you want, it won't make your wishful thinking a reality.
Nor does anything you do make YOUR wishful thinking reality.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, OK. No brains. We get it.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[thegnu]

I don't think its any stretch of the imagination to say linux is the most widely installed general purpose OS (I bet you run it on your router without even knowing)

LIAR!!! *sobs* YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!
(I in fact installed the current distro on my router, please)

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[mikedeanklein]

Siyavash...you need some meds pronto. You are at a minimum anti-social and paranoid and may have psychotic tendencies. Funny how many lose all sense of social decorum when on forums...or do you act like an ass on the street too? He didn't 'dictate' how anyone should use their computer...merely that if you are incapable of googling and attempting 'compsci 110' skills...you're better off having somebody else do the 'heavy lifting' for you. Take some deep breaths dude.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

All I'll say is have you ever tried to make the Windows installer set up a dual boot configuration with another OS? (even another version of windows?) It makes trying to get Ubuntu to dual boot look like something a 3 year old could do. Sure, Vista's installer will see XP, but it wont let you repartition that easily. XP's installer will chew up Vista and spit out its remains.

Funny thing is when the XP installer breaks my Vista boot sector and refuses to let vista load, I usually turn to the ubuntu live CD to fix the damn thing (just override everything with GRUB).. (of course I still need to load the vista DVD and get into that god awful command prompt thing to use bcdedit to fix some parts of it).

Although I do agree with some of your sentiments, this *should* still be easier for newbs to do - there should be a button labelled "give me dual boot, damnit!!1" in the installer that'll do it all for you. I just disagree with the sentiment that windows is somehow easier to deal with when it comes to this sort of thing.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[wikinerd]

I encourage you to read about disk partitioning and then try to install Windows yourself. You'll see that the Windows installer is light years behind many GNU/Linux installers. Most users from the mass market are unable to install Windows themselves, and some times even to configure it properly through the control panel, not to say be able to work with Windows through its command line interface, and would of course be powerless to navigate in its predecessor, MS-DOS, even if they had to do that in order to save their lives! However, I'll agree that most OS installers out there, and not only GNU/Linux's, could be significantly improved in terms of user interface. But the fact is that an OS installer isn't supposed to teach you the basics. If you can't acquire this knowledge yourself, then you need to find a computer technician, knowledgeable friend, or member of the open-source community to do that work for you. I'm sure there are many GNU/Linux fans near you that would be happy to come and help you install any distro for you, even for free. The good thing with GNU/Linux and other similar systems like BSDs is that it's supported by a helpful community whose members don't need to call each other friends in order to offer some help, and this is also a good way to make our communities grow and teach new members the values of volunteerism, copyleft, etc that made GNU/Linux possible. So, for every question about GNU/Linux you have, your best option is to contact your local LUG (Linux User Group), usually through their mailing list, or join a GNU/Linux IRC chat channel (eg on Freenode) while you are doing an installation.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[penix1]

For all the linux fanboys out there, It's worth remembering that Linux doesn't just have to be user friendly to use in order to capture market share from M$, it has to be a one-click, no-brains migration process as well. So long as you don't have that, the evidence in the real world speaks for itself about Linux's failed strategy.

Where to begin...

False assumptions:

1. Linux vs. Microsoft market share matters. Most Linux users couldn't give a hoot whether you are using Linux or not. If you can't handle Linux, stay in Windows. No sweat off my brow...

2. Linux has to be compatible with everything Windows but the reverse isn't true. Try the reverse and installing Windows as a second OS and see how far you get getting them both working without special hacks. Try opening an ODF document in Office and see how far you get with a default Office install. Hell, even try something as simple to implement as reading you Linux partition from Windows and see how far you get.

3. That the general user is unwilling to learn new skills hence will always be in Windows. This is the most insidious, and quite frankly insulting, statement I've ever heard out of Redmond. Repeat something often enough and people start to believe it. The "Linux is too hard" mantra is an attack on the intelligence of their users. Not everyone is willing to remain ignorant of that expensive paperweight on their desk.

4. The install process dictates the "user friendliness" of the entire distribution. In general, people don't spend all their time installing an OS be it Microsoft, Linux, OSX, whatever... I installed my OS (Gentoo) exactly once in 2000 and haven't had to do it since. Can you say the same about your Windows install? In short, install process != entire experience. If you can't install it then do as they do in the Windows environment and find someone who can install it. Conversely, you could buy one with it pre-installed just like you did with your Windows box.

What all this boils down to is your Linux shortcomings are yours and yours alone. Millions worldwide have managed to install and use some flavor of Linux yet your failing is somehow the fault of the OS?!?!?! To somehow suggest that the failure of Microsoft to inter-operate nicely with other OSes is the fault of those OSes is the height of hypocrisy.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I have a linux computer, and want to install windows on it, what happens? NO CHOICE AT ALL! Windows will wipe out anything there! In other words, you didn't even consider the reverse scenario, which demonstrates the utter lack of flexibility of windows, amongst other things. It would appear that your IQ is therefore significantly LOWER than 90% of us...(you need to use something that doesn't allow options, doesn't require THINKING, or SELECTING OPTIONS, etc....yep, windows is perfect for zombies like you. Glad you like it. Keep using it.)...idiot M$ religious fanboy. :-)

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[visualight]

"I think 99% of the people who support Linux would disagree with you."

I bet I know a lot more Linux users than you, and not a single one could give a damn if you use Linux or not.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[houghi]

Let's have a look at the problem from another angle: What if your computer had only Ubuntu, or BSD, or Solaris, or OS X on it and your friend recommended this great new 'Windows' product to you. How easily do you suppose the Windows XP installer would make it to get your computer dual booting?

That is a neat idea. The next time somebody says Windows is so much better, I give them my 486DX Toshiba portable running Debian and ask them to install this great Windows on it.

If they say it is too old, I will invite them and ask them to install Windows on my new PC. I even have a disk for them available /dev/hdd Obviously I must still be able to use hda-hdf with dualboot with Linux.

I only need some basic things that I expect to pay the same price for as a boxed Linux I buy. Things I now use and he needs to provide (can be any way he can get it. I am not picky) gimp, apache with php, mysql, firefox, leafnode (usenetserver), proxy server, mail server, firewall, bash or an answer to my 50+ bash scripts I have made, secure remote access from any PC in the world (I now use ssh) and obviously several repositories so I can install software easily without looking for it, like I do now.

Oh and he needs to get rid f the popups when I plug in a new USB device, like a camera or an MP3 player.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[JohnFluxx]

I don't know why, but somehow your windows entry in /boot/grub/menu.lst is in the wrong place. Perhaps you modified the file or something?

Anyway, to fix, there's a line that says:

### END DEBIAN AUTOMAGIC KERNELS LIST

Anything before this will get modified by the grub updater. Simply more the windows bit to after this line. I have something like:

(lots of stuff here about ubuntu installed kernels)

### END DEBIAN AUTOMAGIC KERNELS LIST

# This is a divider, added to separate the menu items below from the Debian
# ones.
title Other operating systems:
root

# This entry automatically added by the Debian installer for a non-linux OS
# on /dev/hda1
title Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional
root (hd0,0)
savedefault
makeactive
chainloader +1

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[lordtoran]

I don't know about Ubuntu, but Kubuntu and Mandriva detect unpartitioned space on your HD and offer to automatically create the partition layout there. So the easy way is to shrink the Windows partition beforehand (using the GPartEd live cd for example) or have a second empty HD and just accept the partitioning defaults.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[MikeBabcock]

He was only as condescending as your mechanic would be when you told him your car is too hard to drive because you couldn't find the spark plugs.

You don't need to know how to install an OS very often as a user, you need to use the OS. If you want condescending, go talk to a Windows technician, they've already lost all their kindness toward users by this point.

Here's an idea, download a Live CD of Ubuntu or something else and just run it on your PC -- no installation required. If you want to install it, find a Linux geek to do that part for you. Have fun, you might even like it.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[fimbulvetr]

Well it's pretty obvious - either that or you don't know how to read.

Check it out:

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/installingdappere dgy

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/2340/w2u260tf.p ng

First option:

Resize IDE MASTER Partition #1 and used freed space

Here's another:

http://www.ubufied.com/2006/11/01/ubuntu-610-insta llation-with-screenshots/

Says the same thing.

So obviously, you are making this up. Even the windows based installer offers you the option to resize and use freed space.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[alienmole]

I'm rich, successful, good looking and have a model-gorgeous wife

...and if not for that tiny, tiny penis, you wouldn't have to spend so much time on the Internet looking for a cure! Curse you, cruel fate!

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[gerrytucker]

Agreed that Siyavash did go a little overboard on his point, some of the point is still valid. If Linux is ever going to take over the marketplace, it's not going to do it by working well only for the initiated. Agreed that no one attempted to dictate anything, but the fact that for most Linux installs you do have to do something along of the lines of googling for answers or having compsci 110 skills is exactly what makes it difficult for most users. What Microsoft might lack in "bulletproofing" code and making it extensible it more than makes up for in presentation and out of the box ease of use. While this does not make for a technically better product, it does make it more popular to the masses.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are a computer type of any level and you can not handle installation of Ubuntu then you need to get an old computer that can be trashed ALONG WITH a recovery disk for that computer and start playing with computers until you learn something about computers.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[fimbulvetr]

Thank you. I honestly think that will make a difference if we can make it clear, in no uncertain terms, what's happening during install.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Mattsson]

can I create a new partition on any of my drives without destroying the data that's there? Have you ever tried doing the same thing with the partition utility in MS Windows installer? =)
In most cases, it is damn near impossible to keep another OS bootable after using the MS utilities.
They seem to have the position that you shouldn't have more than one OS on your harddrive.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[mikedeanklein]

Sick and tired of people switching to asshole mode at the drop of a hat... Ok...now that that's done with. I have to google for many things...whether Linux OR Windows. Google is a tool much like the calculator used to be (but 1 bazilliion times more powerful). I use it to back up what I "think I know" with what others are seeing/doing...whether you're smart, mediocre, or dumb as a brick...use google and you're better off period. Trying now to get my mom to do the same (you can lead a horse...er mom to water, but...). With Google even 'stupid' people can be 'smart'....but they have to be 'open-minded' and willing to learn. THIS IS THE HURDLE FOR MOST PEOPLE. Just go into 'open book' mode with your brain and people w/be amazed at what they will learn. This is what has got me past racial/sexist/etc. thinking as a kid (I'm 42 now...sigh). After stopping Linux installs after RH9 (didn't get into the whole Fedora thing) I went to Ubuntu (like a year ago). RH9 although slightly less friendly at install time (but not by much) really and truly worked without crashing EVER (ok it did once and shoutcast would cause cpu choke causing reboot...but this is due to my not googling probably). Only issues I had with ubuntu were standby/hibernate and Automatix issues (for dvd, mp3, etc.). Yes I always break out into a sweat when repartng...but I do this whether I'm using PartnMagic (which has hosed my machine several times) or diskdruid/etc. With linux repartn tools I have 100% faith they will work correctly (unlike Windows)...but I worry about my own mistakes with disk/partn sizes...but a simple scan of disk partns in Windows (and writing crap down on paper) fixes this...or googling. Other posters brought up fact that Windows is NO more friendly when doing what original poster said but in reverse (I have linux on laptop and want to add in Windows). As coder for 20+ years (started with Apple ][) and user of MOST operating systems (cept' mac)...it is my honest belief that Windows...although 'easier' to install (if nuttin' else is on your machine)...is detrimental in long run due to crapware, security/stability issues and closed-source/legacy nature of OS. I'm happy Windows has A2DP (bluetooth stereo), OneNote/Office, etc. But when you really pound the thing...it fails flat on it's ass and you have to reboot. Windows still requires reboots even when installing application-level software (like Adobe). Linux (in general) doesn't fall flat on it's ass (but I've had bad ubuntu experiences though)...but does require some 'learning' at various places...like wanting to dual-boot, install mp3/dvd, etc. Windows does 'hide' things from average joe...but this is often what ends up causing problems...like slow booting, etc. If you're not an asshat (not directed at u)...all you need to do is go on an appropriate forum (read ESR posting notes first!) and succinctly state your problem and there are like 1M people willing to help you... take care.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[apparently]

False assumptions:

1. Linux vs. Microsoft market share matters. Most Linux users couldn't give a hoot whether you are using Linux or not. If you can't handle Linux, stay in Windows. No sweat off my brow...

Are you saying that with a straight face? On Slashdot? ha! Of course market share matters. If linux is to be successful on the desktop, it needs to increase its market share. In order to increase its market share, it's going to have to work to make the transition from windows easy

2. Linux has to be compatible with everything Windows but the reverse isn't true. Try the reverse and installing Windows as a second OS and see how far you get getting them both working without special hacks.

Again, this goes back to the market share. Windows HAS the market share, hence they don't NEED to provide any transition options. Linux, on the otherhand, is TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE SWITCH. Ubuntu (and friends) are in a very different position than Windows. How do you not get that?

3. That the general user is unwilling to learn new skills hence will always be in Windows. This is the most insidious, and quite frankly insulting, statement I've ever heard out of Redmond.

Years of desktop support say otherwise. There is a majority (not all, but a majority) of users who do not want to learn the different between a monitor, a computer, or a hard drive. There is a majority of users who get stumped by a frozen program and don't want to learn how to End Task. There is a majority of users who can be instructed verbally, or with detailed screenshot instructions, who refuse to learn simple, simple tasks for themselves.

4. The install process dictates the "user friendliness" of the entire distribution. In general, people don't spend all their time installing an OS be it Microsoft, Linux, OSX, whatever... I installed my OS (Gentoo) exactly once in 2000 and haven't had to do it since. Can you say the same about your Windows install?

Since Windows 2000, I have never had to perform an OS installation of Microsoft's product -- yes, that was a ridiculous issue pre-2000, but it's been a thing of the past for 7 years, friend (caveat: I haven't played with Vista yet).

In short, install process != entire experience
No shit, sherlock. And no one ever said that. The new user post-install problems are well documented.

To somehow suggest that the failure of Microsoft to inter-operate nicely with other OSes is the fault of those OSes is the height of hypocrisy.
Who is converting from another OS to Microsoft? Who is trying to break into the market share? You need to re-analyze your "false assumptions".

Also, a P.S.: Fuck off for making me defend Microsoft. I need a shower.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

pardon me? Did I just hear someone saying ms doesn't have an arrogant .. whatever.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

And this coming from the biggest Apple troll on Slashdot...oh the sweet, sweet irony.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[fireheadca]

Many noobs have had the same idea, they are no longer noobs as they know how to read. Seriously though, the partition software is feature rich, powerful and simple. Can you please give us an example of drive partitioning software that you like and understand, because most will allow you to partition for linux. Ranish, fdisk, partition magic?? --- Bill, is that you?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[janrinok]

I think 99% of the people who support Linux would disagree with you.

Just picked that figure from somewhere where the sun doesn't shine? Please back it up with a reference. Or is it that you would like it to be around that figure?

Many people have moved to linux over the last year or two and think that it is something new. It isn't. The problems that they (and perhaps you) encountered have been discussed many, many times before. (E.g. http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm, http://www.psychocats.net/essays/winuxinstall, http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxwindowscompa rison) Linux will not suit everybody, just as a 4x4 or a Rolls Royce will not suit everybody. There is no point in trying to pretend otherwise. If people did a little research before trying Linux and then discovering that it is different, they would be a lot less disappointed when they find that it is not what they are used to. People are not born with an inherent knowledge of Windows but they have been exposed to it for many years. They have learnt how it works over time and by experience. So why are they surprised when they encounter something new and cannot master it in 10 minutes?

I haven't got an attitude about Linux. Can you please provide one authoritative source which states that Linux is trying to become as big as Windows? Please don't just give me someone's personal viewpoint, I want something that clearly states that the objective of the Linux community is to beat Microsoft in the market place. Most of those who support Linux by writing code don't give a toss about Microsoft. Those who want to use it because it is better than Windows have already made up their mind. The 99% of people that I think you are referring to are those who have come to Linux recently, find it is free, and would like it to become the new Windows so that there is yet more free software written for it. I have no objection to this viewpoint but I do not think it is representative of the Linux community that I have been part of since 1998.

snotty, arrogant, thoughtless, antagonistic attitude

As many others have pointed out. Installing Linux can be difficult but it is easier than installing Windows on top of Linux and keeping both installations working. But if you want something that is point and click just like Windows, then stick to Windows. I think that your problem is that you are not as skillful at using Linux as you are at using Windows, and you attribute this to something wrong with Linux. Many of us would disagree with you. For those that make the effort to learn Linux (and anything rewarding requires some degree of effort on the part of the individual) then there are rewards aplenty. But please don't change Linux to make it like Windows - many of us don't want it to be like Windows, thank you.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[mackyrae]

If you don't delete the partition first, just shrink it, your stuff will still be there. 1GB is the minimum for Ubuntu, but you may want to end up installing programs at some point or saving files, so 5-10GB is what I suggest. Why wouldn't partitions be sharable? That's silly. It's not like Ubuntu can say "f off Windows, MINE!" I'd set it up something like this (it's how my Debian & Ubuntu dual boot is set up):

• 10GB Windows system files, C:\ (NTFS), I think the new partitioner requires that you make up a mount point for it, so /media/windows
• 10GB Ubuntu (ext3), mount point is /
• your RAM * 2, use as linux-swap (that's page files)
• the rest is, if you're using XP, ext3 (then install the driver on Windows from fs-driver.org), or on Vista since there's no driver, make it NTFS. Mount point is /home

Each OS has its system files in one section. Swap is the pagefile for Linux. The /home partition will likely show as E:\ or F:\ on Windows, and it will hold all your stuff.

Personally, I don't like the new partition manager in the installer (Partman). GParted (in System > Administration > GNOME Partitioner) has a much nicer UI, in my opinion. It's what was in previous versions of Ubuntu. I'd partition it in GParted first, then start the installer and just use Partman for setting the mount points.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm rich, successful, good looking and have a model-gorgeous wife

Can you make my Firefox show me naked women?
Or does this part also fall under the category

Shucks, you got me. I made the whole thing up

Get a life, leave your parents' basement.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[mackyrae]

Windows assumes you are a toddler with an IQ of 4. Linux assumes you have a working brain. The only one of his questions that really made sense was "can I resize without data loss?" and the answer would be "as long as you don't try to take a full partition and shrink it or try to turn 20GB of data into a 15GB space." Some partitioners behave differently and just delete the whole partition and recreate it instead of properly resizing. His problem is that the program assumed he knew what a partition is and how they work--something that is a bit of a prerequisite for even knowing a dual-boot is possible, I thought. Still, I really hate the new partitioner. It's got a craptastic UI.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm rich, successful, good looking and have a model-gorgeous wife

Then you wake up and come trolling to /. Next time wish for some brains before going to sleep.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[that this is not und]

No, Windows will not wipe out anything that is there. It involves knowing what you are doing. Windows installers find 'non-windows partitions' and ask what should be done about them. If you aren't familiar enough with MBR issues and how to recover from them, you shouldn't be dual booting.

Then again, I consider dual-booting to be a bad thing in it's own right. I dedicate each machine to a single operating system. It's lame to find yourself needing some feature and having to reboot a whole frickin' machine to get to it. KVM switches are your friend.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Sancho]

Now, should Mr. McBob just toss the disk in and partition the drive? Most users who have no knowledge of partitioning would assume that if they're installing Ubuntu on their systems, that it would non-destructively partition the drive so that they can use all their existing data. No, most users don't even realize that hard drives have partitions. Most users will think that they're going to run Ubuntu from Windows, and have no reason to believe that their data is in jeopardy at all, anyway.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[HAKdragon]

Go to Circuit city, and look at all the new IBM terminals littered through the store. Linux. Go to Brazil, and all their fucking ATMs? Linux. "Linux" can't capture market share because "Linux" isn't a singular entity.

To play devil's advocate, the terminals at a local Best Buy run Windows, as do the ATM at one of the local banks and I remember the screen on one of the gas station pumps was using IE to display images.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are the sorts of reasons that you are rightly being called a troll.

Technicality: You shouldn't call someone a troll for being wrong or misinformed.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[djschaap]

Yes, my local ATM runs Windows too. See the proof here: http://www.goodexperience.com/tib/archives/2004/08 /atm_running_win.html [I can't decide is this is funny or sad....]

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[thegnu]

To play devil's advocate, the terminals at a local Best Buy run Windows, as do the ATM at one of the local banks and I remember the screen on one of the gas station pumps was using IE to display images.
Right, but I was arguing that Linux IS in fact gaining market share. The IBM Linux marketing push is relatively new (3-4 years?), and the Circuit City roll-out is happening right now. I bet that those terminals have been on a flavor of Windows for a damn while.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[49152]

That is NOT the reason Linux does not have a wider user base.

Have you tried partitioning the disk using the Windows installer? I think its easy (and so is the Ubuntu one) but I also know most users cannot handle it unless perhaps they just lets Windows format the whole drive, Ubuntu (and almost all other distros) can do that also, the hard part is knowing how to leave the another OS already installed unharmed, MS Windows is much worse than Ubuntu when it comes to that.

The REAL reason Linux does not have wide user base is because virtually every computer the last 15 years have been delivered with Windows PREINSTALLED, nothing can beat that for user friendliness.

Windows is obviously not easy enough to install compared to Ubuntu that this alone explains their market dominance, I cannot even start to count the number of times over the years I had to help friends, colleagues, family, friends of family etc to reinstall Windows and some of those people are what I would call moderately computer literate (but not geeks).

This is not a problem for Microsoft because the end user usually don't install the OS himself.

Of course there are many reasons to as why/how Microsoft reached their dominating market place but technical prominence or even 'ease of use' was never the most important ones, anyone who's been around a while remember how cumbersome their first products where. Still they practically 'conquered' the world with them.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[penix1]

Are you saying that with a straight face? On Slashdot? ha! Of course market share matters. If linux is to be successful on the desktop, it needs to increase its market share. In order to increase its market share, it's going to have to work to make the transition from windows easy

Actually, I am. "Market share" is a false measurement especially since it can't really be measured where linux is concerned. So to use it as an advocacy tool is an exercise in futility. Those that do are in for a long haul and eventually a rude awakening. In either event, it really is no skin off my brow whether anyone but me uses it.

Again, this goes back to the market share. Windows HAS the market share, hence they don't NEED to provide any transition options. Linux, on the other hand, is TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE SWITCH. Ubuntu (and friends) are in a very different position than Windows. How do you not get that?

The knife cuts both ways. Only the distributors are worried about who is using it. This goes to my point above. I am not a distributor thus couldn't give a rat's sack if you were using it. It shouldn't be a race to see who can have a monopoly on the desktop but instead be who can produce the highest quality and best "experience" (whatever that may be). This whole "them vs us" shit is just that.

Years of desktop support say otherwise. There is a majority (not all, but a majority) of users who do not want to learn the different between a monitor, a computer, or a hard drive. There is a majority of users who get stumped by a frozen program and don't want to learn how to End Task. There is a majority of users who can be instructed verbally, or with detailed screenshot instructions, who refuse to learn simple, simple tasks for themselves.

And those users are the ones that should stay where they are. Why should Linux cater to the least common denominator especially for the reason of "market share"? Those users are a nightmare no matter what OS they are using so no sense in forcing something on them that will be an even worse nightmare. Again, it goes back to point one....

Since Windows 2000, I have never had to perform an OS installation of Microsoft's product -- yes, that was a ridiculous issue pre-2000, but it's been a thing of the past for 7 years, friend (caveat: I haven't played with Vista yet).

Let's see, since 2000 there has been Windows 2000, XP, XP SP1, XP SP2, and Vista all in their various flavors. Support for 2000 is ending (or has ended) so if you are going to be up-to-date your statement is false. In 2000 I installed Gentoo and have a current system through normal updates. I haven't had to install the base OS from scratch since. Again, if you followed the release cycle of Microsoft then you can't say the same.

No shit, sherlock. And no one ever said that. The new user post-install problems are well documented.

Nice piece of judicious editing you did there. The OP was saying install == Linux sux. Go back and re-read it. That is why I quoted him.

Who is converting from another OS to Microsoft? Who is trying to break into the market share? You need to re-analyze your "false assumptions".

Again with the "market share". Market share doesn't matter a hill of beans from a users perspective. Microsoft doesn't have this highly vaunted market share because of superior technology but because of their anti-competitive behavior. So it is your contention that Linux distros should use the same tactics to gain "market share"? I believe that was tried and soundly rejected via a license change (re: Novell & GPLv3).

Also, a P.S.: Fuck off for making me defend Microsoft. I need a shower.

Hey, I never put a gun to your head and said, "The two neurons get it unless you defend MS." That was solely your choice. Don't drop the soap or you may realize the screwing you are getting from Microsoft...;-)

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[mackyrae]

That option DOES exist. It says "use largest continual free space."

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[49152]

And your still wrong, even if it was a 'Magic no clicks at all'(TM) process it is not whats needed to get a large market share.

It does not really matter how difficult it is to install it, because you see - ordinary USERS do not install their OS-software them self.

As other people has pointed out, by your standards even Microsoft Windows is not ready for the masses and if you have been around since the early days (80-90s) you would also know that easy installation was never how they got their large market share in the first place.

Easy dual boot is of course important enough but it is NOT a magic wand that will make Linux 'steal' market share from Windows.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve, is that you again?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[FOSSdude]

You suck at life.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[kc2keo]

Well put. I agree with you on the part that you will learn from the mistakes you make. When my OS breaks its normally from what I did whether it be GNU/Linux or Windows. The machine I use is strictly used by me so there are no other users. This makes it much easier to figure out things when they go bad.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[nyctopterus]

Uh, I recently installed Ubuntu on my girlfriend's computer, and was similarly confused by the partitioning aspect of the install (which I ended up having to do manually). Now, like him I would normally consider myself computer savvy (macs, not Windows in this case), even if I don't know a lot about partitioning. The help in Ubuntu is often of a very cursory nature, the partitioning help particularly so.

I'm very happy with Ubuntu now it's up and running, it's simple, elegant and fast, but the installation process needs more help for the users who might be trying to do something other than wipe the disk and install Ubuntu on ext3.

I actually think this is a bit of a broader problem with the Linux mindset: either you're a stupid GUI user who only wants the vanilla setup and everything done automatically, or you're command-line wizard. Actually, I think the people most likely to switch to Linux are power GUI users.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[DrIdiot]

Your reply is exactly why Linux has not gained market share. Who are you to dictate HOW I should use my computer? Some kind of nazi? Come up with a super easy GUI solution instead of telling the guy to fuck off and sending him to mercy of the OEMs.
You can't possibly expect to be able to install any operating system without sufficient knowledge about how hard drive partitioning works. It gets worse with windows: do you think the fdisk Windows (XP) provides has a better UI than the GUI on the Ubuntu LiveCD? Windows assumes it's the first OS you're installing on the system. It has no GUI for partition management. You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no easy solution - a computer cannot read your mind and determine how you want your partitions.

Funny how Linux people dictate MORE than Microsoft ever done to its users. Specially when someone is asking "Why can't I" usually he/she gets the answer "You don't need to" instead of actual help. And funny how he actually "can handle" "this" with windows and not Linux. Funny how you tell him to go to OEMs instead of admitting Windows is easier and stronger in this matter since the user can do it "there" and not "here".
If you are unable to accept the default configuration presented to you but unwilling to acquire the knowledge required to modify that configuration... what do you expect?

Score me -1, what the fuck do I care. My IQ is probably higher than 90% of you... god damn Linux religious zealots.
How old are you? You haven't made a single reasonable claim/argument yet.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[TClevenger]

Yes, and if you buy a retail or OEM box copy of Windows XP, expecting to use it to dual-boot with anything else (even Windows 98 or 2000), you'll be just as frustrated with its partition manager in Setup (even more so--at least Linux attempts to install a bootloader that will multi-boot; I don't think XP even gives you that option.)

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[TClevenger]

This is the exact reason that people get put off using Linux. The response from most Linux users is condescension when people tell them that using Linux is too hard. You dismiss the users ability to use computers because he doesn't understand partitions and qualify his ability as only "Windows" proficiency. You fail to see that he has been using windows and didn't need to understand more about partitioning to get the tasks he uses his computer for done.

No, they're telling you the facts. The reason Windows is so easy is that it's preinstalled. Go buy an OEM or retail box of XP and try to install it without killing your existing partitions (whether they be Linux or older versions of Windows.) You'll find that the Windows installers are practically brain-dead: no partition shrinking capability, no dual-boot at all in some versions. Hell, until recently, you couldn't even boot Windows off any drive other than the first in the chain; you had to have the BIOS trick Windows to boot off the second drive in the system.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[tilde_e]

VMware Server is the answer. When my work laptop came preinstalled with a Windows environment that I thought was useless, I ram VMware Converter, converted the physical machine to a VMware image, and now I happily run Ubuntu and have a useful workstation, but can boot the Windows XP image, and even run it fullscreen if I have to, without interrupting my real work.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[couchslug]

IMO the ideal way to learn Linux is to have two PCs next to each other so you can use your Winbox to surf for info while installing Linux on the other machine.Learning ANY OS is easier if you can play on a computer set aside for the purpose. The next best is a hard drive swap rack and a second hd for Linux, but used PCs are cheap or free nowadays.
If clutter is a problem, use a KVM switch to share monitor/keyboard/mouse.

Learning ANY OS is easier if you can play on a computer set aside for the purpose.
When one is at the earliest noob stage, hosing their Windows install while installing or churning between distros is an annoyance they don't need.
I suggest starting with a live CD (Ubuntu or my favorite, Sidux) and exploring that. The live CD can rescue your data if you later trash your hard disk install.
Partitioning BTW is basic to any OS install, and the info is available with some Googling. There are plenty of Linux forums with helpful people, and I never got told, even back in 1999, to "RTFM".

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[couchslug]

"Linux has to do more than just be as good as Windows once it's installed. It has to actively capture market share. To do that, the migration process must be no more complicated than a single click:"Ubuntu has detected Windows XP installed on this system. Do you want to install a Dual Boot System?" Yes. Click. Done. If it's not as easy as that, guess what? No market share for you. Not yours."

IMO the whole dual-booting thing confuses noobs and they get pissed off if they trash their Winstall. I help them set up another computer to learn on instead. It isn't as if computers are expensive. I find a decent spare machine and have them install while I supervise. If it's worth doing, it's worth getting a bit of gear to do it more easily.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Iam9376]

I bet you also grew up using a spoon and fork, heaven forbid you to ever use chopsticks. On that note, would you consider Mac OS X a failure? it surely doesn't resemble Windows at all, yet people happily switch and adapt (interesting, humans.. 'adapting'!) and the majority who switch never go back. So what is your argument on that? I'm curious why you only choose to attack that portion of my comment? The point is, people switch to other operating systems regardless of how 'similar' it was to the previously used one. There are multiple ways to eat food, multiple ways to get around, multiple ways to use your computer.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Iam9376]

I bet you also grew up using a spoon and fork, heaven forbid you to ever use chopsticks.

On that note, would you consider Mac OS X a failure? it surely doesn't resemble Windows at all, yet people happily switch and adapt (interesting, humans.. 'adapting'!) and the majority who switch never go back. So what is your argument on that?

I'm curious why you only choose to attack that portion of my comment?

The point is, people switch to other operating systems regardless of how 'similar' it was to the previously used one. There are multiple ways to eat food, multiple ways to get around, multiple ways to use your computer.

(i apologize for the poorly formatted version of this post)

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[dswensen]

1) There is no GUI so "super easy" that someone will not complain that it's too difficult / non-intuitive / etc. This is easily demonstrable. A pre-installed OS really is the best choice for a lot of casual users.

2) I think you meant "My IQ is probably higher than 90% of yours."

3) I'm afraid you've invoked Godwin's Law. You lose. Good day, sir.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'd have done it like this:

1. Re-partition the system using a Linux LiveCD.
2. Install Windows in the empty space.
3. Boot that Linux LiveCD again and use it to re-install the bootloader.
4. Either from the LiveCD or from inside Linux, create a bootloader entry for Windows.

But then, that's just because I like Grub, not the Windows bootloader. It's not really any more user-friendly, but it is fewer steps.

My point was, you can take a Windows computer and, using nothing other than a Linux install CD, repartition it for dual-boot. You can't do the reverse -- the Windows install CD won't let you repartition an existing OS to make room for it. You'll at the very least need a Windows install CD and some other bootable rescue environment -- probably a boot CD, and probably Linux, though as you point out, Boot Camp probably works pretty well. (I've never used Boot Camp, as I don't have an Intel Mac.)

In other words, any way you cut it, Linux is more user-friendly to setup dual-boot with than Windows is. Maybe it's not as nice as it could be, but I find it a bit unrealistic to say that this is the one thing holding Linux adoption back.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[_Sprocket_]

I grew up driving in cars with a steering wheel, accelerator, brake, clutch and gearshift. If you want me to switch to a different brand of car, don't complain when I say I'm not keen on it because I have to steer your car with my feet and operate the accelerator and brake with a joystick. If you want me to use your product instead of the one I'm already familiar and happy with, you'd better bend over backwards to make it easy for me. Here's the problem. Vast majority of cars do have a steering wheel, accelerator pedal, and break pedal. Fewer cars these days have a clutch or gearshift. Those with automatic transmission have differing ways of engaging different modes. And then theres these systems that allow you to jump between automatic and something akin to manual transmission modes. I'm sure there are people who've never driven a manual in their lives. I'm sure there are people who dislike one system or the other. But in the grand scheme - these are simply alternatives to how to do the same general thing... and likely not the only thing that impacts the success of any given car model in the market.

In short, different does not mean failure in the marketplace. If it did, Windows itself would have so much more problems having gone through various changes from MS-DOS to Vista.

Now... having said all that... we're talking about partitioning hard drives here, right? This isn't "how to drive a car." This is more akin to "how to rebuild an engine."

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Romancer]

"Here is the thing, Ubuntu/Kubuntu already do this, it's been in the installer for ages."

Then why did he not understand if his data was going to be accessable? I've never seen the installer assure someone that this will be the case and I've never seen an Ubuntu installer with a "just make it work" dual boot option.

"He is told: "You are the problem, not Linux."
No, he has been told that Windows is more difficult to setup with preinstalled Linux system than Windows being preinstalled and Linux being setup after."

The specific quote was: Try dual booting between windows XP & Vista & you'll find that your lack of knowledge about partitions was the problem, not linux itself.
The comment was used to show that the same user would find the same difficulty in using another OS in the same manner because the problem was their knowledge not the Software. I also said that pointing at another OS and saying "They don't do it better" isn't an excuse if you're trying to advocate your choice as the better.

The whole point of my post was to get the Linux users off their high horses and actually look at the general public as their user base and make the software comfortable to use. Perhaps if you did that instead of spending the time exacerbating the frustration of the users by showing them that they know nothing, then you would be able to have an OS that is not only powerful but also easy to use by the people at large. That's the way to gain market share if you want to. But instead you decide to pick apart arguments and use the inadequacies of computer users against them.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[init100]

What he referred to is that Windows comes preloaded while Linux mostly do not. Most Windows users never install Windows themselves. To make a reasonable comparison, you should either compare installing Windows on a naked computer with installing Linux on the same (naked) computer, or compare a computer with Windows preloaded with the same computer with Linux preloaded.

Saying that Linux is hard to use just because installation requires familiarity with such concepts as partitions and MBRs, while most users never touch the Windows installer (which requires about the same knowledge) because Windows comes preloaded is the opposition of a fair comparison.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[KeepQuiet]

Thank you for posting about Wubi. Seems to be a great tool. I didn't know it.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[init100]

it is hard to do if you haven't done it before

Hard? Dual-boot? In what way? Even the first time I installed Linux (Red Hat 5.2), I cannot say that it was hard. Of course, I used a partition-shrinking program before the install so that there was free unpartitioned space before I ran the install, but at that time, Linux install programs didn't automatically shrink Windows partitions to make space.

The only time it became somewhat hard is when I got a second harddrive, and tried to run Windows from it. It took some time before I figured out that I had to trick the Windows kernel loader to think that it was installed on the first harddrive, not the second, because Windows can only boot if it resides on the first harddrive. But this problem only occurs with multiple disks in the computer.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[init100]

create empty partition using Windows (Windows installation disk for example [I'm assuming it can do this, because you said it is easier to use.])

This can be done from within Windows using the Disk Management administrative tool.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[init100]

In my experience, installing Windows hasn't ever been much more complicated than that.

You must be confusing the Windows installer with the system rescue disc.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[init100]

Actually, I think the people most likely to switch to Linux are power GUI users.

A power user that doesn't know anything about partitions and cannot use Disk Druid?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[whoever57]

See my other posts about the fact that if Linux wants a share of the desktop market migration and dual-boot must be a one-click, no-brains process.

I think you missed the replies that pointed out that it would have worked if you had picked the default option. The problem arise because you thought you were savvy enough to stray from the default, but then found that your knowledge was lacking.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[PeterBrett]

No, Windows will not wipe out anything that is there. It involves knowing what you are doing. Windows installers find 'non-windows partitions' and ask what should be done about them. If you aren't familiar enough with MBR issues and how to recover from them, you shouldn't be dual booting.

Amusing anecdote: I had a Linux-only box, and wanted to put a Windows XP dual-boot on it. So I created some free space, and launched the XP installation CD (this was the OEM SP2 edition). The installer refused to boot, giving me a blank screen.

The eventual fix? Use dd to overwrite my MBR with 0s.

As long as grub was there, the Windows installer refused to boot.

It's really galling that Microsoft are so arrogant they assume that no-one will ever want to use an operating system other than their own, and refuse to provide drivers for filesystems other than their own. And then they have the guts to strut around bragging about how "interoperable" they are.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Al_Maverick]

Have you ever tried to do the same thing in Windows? It doesnt look like it, because the windows installer screen, when it comes to partitioning, is far far behind Ubuntu or Debian, for the case. You can do things with it that you couldnt ever do in Windows. It just proves the GP point that OS-preinstalled PCs are the way to go to extend linux userbase (not sure if I would like that, but thats besides the point) Anyway, if you go to Ubuntu forums, someone will help you quickly. We have the same questions day in and day out, and we have several HowTos on how to do it, and we help ppl with the special quirks that show up along the way in certain cases. I would point them to you, but they are in Spanish.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

They want to create a distribution of Linux that is usable by the masses.

Exactly. If they didn't want this, then I wouldn't have anything to complain about. There are expert-only Linux distros, and you don't hear me whining about them being too difficult for a noob to figure out in 2 minutes. But the whole purpose of Ubuntu is to be easy and user-friendly enough to both install and use as to make people want to switch from Windows. Well guess what? FAIL.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

I have two drives and four partitions in total. In the installer they show up as HD0, HD1 and stuff like that. I don't know which drive is which, or which partition is which, and the installer didn't offer any info about which partition had the OS, which had the data, which had the recovery stuff, and which was empty. Though the two drives are identically partitioned, I might have been able to figure out which was which had I spent some real time on it. But since I couldn't do it in 3 minutes, my response continues to be: this is not user-friendly enough for the mass market. That doesn't mean I'm not capable of learning how to install and use Ubuntu. It means that it wasn't convenient enough for me to switch. Since the central part of Ubuntu's mission is precisely to be easy enough to for people to effortlessly migrate from Windows, this constitutes a failure to a achieve their stated objective.

No matter how many people call me a retard for not taking the several hours I would need to learn enough about how to install Ubuntu to do it safely, it doesn't change the fact that Ubuntu is not user-friendly enough for someone's grandma to install. Many Linux distros are expert-only. No grandma's wanted. But Ubuntu is NOT like that. The only possible reason why fanboys continue to flame me for pointing out these facts is that the truth has a bitter taste.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[syousef]

t calling you a sad troll & a dumbass is both satisfying to me & educational to fellow slashdotters who otherwise might take you seriously.

How does this post get modded insightful with trollish content like that? /. has gone to the dogs!!!

Yeah the GP isn't terribly knowledgable and didn't make his point well, but that's no excuse to hurl abuse at him. Don't get me wrong - on occassion I've been guilty of the same, especially when I've thought the poster was saying something that was actually dangerous. However I'd not expect to be modded insightful for name calling.

The fact is that the GP was sufficiently confused by the installer that he didn't feel comfortable going forward with an install. I'd argue that's the right thing to do. Now I'm not familiar with the Ubuntu installer, but does it make it clear in advance what will happen if you proceed? Even in advanced mode for someone who knows Linux well I'd argue you shouldn't have to have prior knowledge of how the installer is going to behave to avoid hosing an existing partition. This is 2007. Any OS install and partitioning tool should make it very clear what's going to happen. Yes, Windows isn't up to par either.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

See the other post by the Linux expert who has just filed a bug report because the Ubuntu installer does not explain that the default option will safely create a dual-boot system.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[syousef]

No, he has been told that Windows is more difficult to setup with preinstalled Linux system than Windows being preinstalled and Linux being setup after.

Yes, but you're not trying to advocate that users with Linux pre-installed should switch to Linux, so while you're right about the Windows partitioning software being awful it's a moot point because most people have machines that come with Windows pre-installed and don't deal with it. If the Linux software isn't up to scratch its easier not to try something that can hose their operating system and leave them having to try to work out how both installers work before their computer will run at all.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

try installing Windows after Ubuntu

Nobody is in that situation, so your example is pointless.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Ash-Fox]

Yes, but you're not trying to advocate that users with Linux pre-installed should switch to Linux,

I'm not advocating anything actually. I'm pointing out it's easier to get Linux to interoperate with Windows than the other way around.

so while you're right about the Windows partitioning software being awful it's a moot point because most people have machines that come with Windows pre-installed and don't deal with it.

I am just pointing out that Linux is easier from what I can see. People claiming that Windows is easier for partitioning and so on have a invalid claim in this case.

If the Linux software isn't up to scratch its easier not to try something that can hose their operating system and leave them having to try to work out how both installers work before their computer will run at all.

There is a chance any OS install will hose a system.

For any major operation: backup, backup, oh and backup.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Ash-Fox]

Then why did he not understand if his data was going to be accessable?

Why doesn't my car start sometimes?

I've never seen the installer assure someone that this will be the case and I've never seen an Ubuntu installer with a "just make it work" dual boot option.

I've never seen my car assure me it will start, I get all these warning lights before the engine starts.

The whole point of my post was to get the Linux users off their high horses and actually look at the general public as their user base and make the software comfortable to use.

I have no obligation to help anyone. Just because I am a Linux user (someone who uses Linux) doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to develop applications for free, doesn't mean I have to promote Linux, doesn't mean I have to help others for no compensation.

Hell, I don't even see those expectations on just windows users either.

Perhaps if you did that instead of spending the time exacerbating the frustration of the users by showing them that they know nothing, then you would be able to have an OS that is not only powerful but also easy to use by the people at large.

This is a tech oriented website which is known to be used as a discussion forum on geeky stuff. It is not a help channel, don't expect such help responses to be on such site either.

But instead you decide to pick apart arguments and use the inadequacies of computer users against them.

This is Slashdot, not a help forum.

If it were a help forum -- sure, I wouldn't be arguing facts.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[turing_m]

That's an excellent idea. Teach a man to fish...

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Blain]

Yeah, sorta, maybe. I've done a number of kubuntu installs lately, and they really aren't terribly complicated (although I'll admit that my small-but-growing linux background made facing /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda2 comfortable and familiar where they wouldn't be to a linux noob). It asks for the language you want to install in, and then your time zone, and what partition you want to install to (with the drool-proof option of finding space on your main partition automatic and default) (and safe the two times I tried it), and then your name and what you want the machine named. A Windows install would not have been easier, but most Windows users have never done a Windows install, so it might be a bit much for most Windows users. To make this an apples comparison, then, we should have folks not talking about how hard or easy the ubuntu install was unless they've done a Windows install, and the rest should be discussion of using it after someone else has done the install, just like somebody else did the Windows install it's being compared to.

People will still find things to complain about, but they complain about Windows machines also. If you locked them into using Ubuntu, the way they've always been locked into Windows, it wouldn't take a week for them to find that most of them can do most of what they need to do (if not all of it) just as easily under ubuntu as they did under Windows. They might also notice that their machines are more stable and run faster, particularly without having the performance hits of always-on anti-virus programs (Norton slammed our office from day one, and each new version is worse).

I know that everybody wants a flat learning curve on everything they want to do, but that's not available anywhere. You can't fight for your right to know nothing and expect to keep up with the advances of our increasingly technical society. "I don't like computers" is like "I don't like internal combustion engines" these days -- interesting, but it doesn't reduce the enormous life-style hit you're going to take for that position if you're serious about it.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Retief-CDT]

The 10 percent of us, with a higher IQ than you, think you are a moron. Sorry, but Idiots are always the first to believe in their own infallibility. Linux user for 2 years and not a zealot.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[kryptx]

I'm using Ubuntu 7.04 right now, and when I first installed it I had problems with the partitioning, too. I had decided to get rid of Windows completely. So I told Ubuntu to erase the NTFS partition from which Windows Vista was booting and install Ubuntu linux in its place. Half an hour later, the system is ready to boot, right? Wrong. "Missing operating system". I tried both manual partitioning and automatic partitioning twice each with the same results, and never receiving any warnings or more verbose error messages than that.

Evidently the problem was the fact that I had a PATA hard drive installed, which contained an old Windows XP install that I used before Vista. I had obviously already switched the primary drive to the SATA drive (Vista booted fine from it, after all), and I double-checked this multiple times while trying to get Ubuntu to boot. The only solution I could find was to disconnect the PATA drive entirely.

I like Linux; I think it's good at what it does. Hell, I'm absolutely blown away by some of the things it does that Windows has never done (and in some cases, never will). But while it's true that the users often could put forth more effort to make it operate smoothly, linux advocates would do well to be honest when windows can still do something better.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[siyavash]

I don't think, I KNOW. Say whatever you want but I'll beat you and 90% of the /. people in an IQ test. You might THINK that you are superior but you are not. I know by fact that I am. There is no way you will ever be able to undrestand my logic due to my high IQ. You are a lower "kind" of human. Sleep well little sheeple.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[syousef]

Well the general gist of Linux advocacy under which this article falls certainly are suggesting that we replace Windows with Linux on the desktop. Since it's reasonably rare to wish to add Windows to an existing Linux install and since that is not what these articles are about, how well Windows does it compared to Linux is completely irrelevant. It is most certainly true that sticking with Windows will not increase your risk of losing data, while resizing and installing a Linux partition is a significant risk. An end user that hasn't got much interest in computers will very likely never try a second install of Ubuntu if the first one hoses their existing OS.

In any case have you considered backup can also hose a system? I installed Acronis TrueImage on a computer at one point for a friend and he ran into this error (the post below is not by that friend)

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/archive/index.php/t -96224.html

Loved playing tech support on that one.

I've also seen Norton Ghost trash a system drive trying to back up partitions. Something funky about support for a particular hard drive controller chipset I think. In any case, hoses is hosed.

The fact is there's no excuse for software that deals with user data being so damned finicky. It's 2007 - how long has NTFS been around? How long has ext2 been around? You can never make anything completely idiot proof but the software should be damn near it by now. It's not.

Note that I'm not skewing this in favour of Windows or against Linux. Don't even get me started on how bad the Windows File Manager is, especially when you try to copy across network shares. (Why is there no resume option if a copy fails for instance? Any time I'm copying large data sets I'm still using robocopy - even the sync toy is buggy and crash prone)

Why are we all putting up with this shit?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Criton]

My notebook an amd turion based acer spends more time in Mepis then windows now. If not for a few games windows would be removed and mepis given the entire HD. All my hardware except for the internal card reader works perfectly fine though sound took some editing of a file in /etc/rc and the video required ATI's binary drivers for 3d support. I'll make the switch fully once MS pulls support for XP as I will not run Vista as it runs like crap even on dual core systems making a P2 running win 98 look fast.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Rimbo]

Guided -- Resize Master and use freed space
Guided -- Use the entire disk
Guided -- Use the largest continuous free space
Manual

Is that precisely what it says? If not, ignore the rest of the post below.

I -do- know a few things about partitioning, and I've installed more Linux and dual-boot systems than I can remember. I also have had to do tech support, from getting Mom's email working on up to helping resolve an issue with a customer who happens to be a Fortune 500 company.

Why not add some explanation to the options this way:

Guided -- Resize Master and use freed space. This will preserve your old system, and allow you to boot into both Ubuntu and the old system.
Guided -- Use the entire disk. This will destroy everything on your hard drive and install Ubuntu over it.
Guided -- Use the largest continuous free space.
Honestly, I don't know exactly what this means; does this mean a new partition is created, or is it referring to un-partitioned free space? This should be re-written to specify exactly which it means.
Manual. Only select this if you are experienced with creating disk partitions, or have unusual requirements.

There is always room for clarity. Do you think that would help make the options more clear to average users? How else could we make the options more clear?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[l0b0]

Having installed several WinXP & GNU/Linux dual-boots, here are the problems I've spotted so far, and some fixes:

• Windows will only install on the first partition of the master disk on IDE-0. If you've already installed Linux there, you'll have to either move the partitions or chuck in another HD as master.
• Windows will destroy your MBR. Can anyone post the command to fix this from a live CD?
• FAT32 is the only partition type both Windows and GNU/Linux support natively. There are also Windows drivers for Ext2, and GNU/Linux drivers for NTFS.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Daengbo]

Obviously these additions would make the situation more clear, and shoudl be considered (I booted a VM just to quote them, BTW). However, I still think that the original complaint is out of line considering 1) he said that he was computer literate, and 2) he decided to change the default (which would've worked) and use the manual option when he didn't know what to do with it.

Thanks for the input.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[dredwerker]

This is where I would like to head. I have just installed 7.04 on my laptop. It is very good apart from the wireless support. I am going to need to frig the wireless drivers for the broadcom 4306 using ndiswrapper. Then I installed it on my main home pc dual boot with windows and i lost 500gb of data in a freak powercut whilst resizing the partition. I have now got over that trauma. What guts me though is that I still cant get it to dual boot/run at all. Obviously I understand partitioning well enough to put it on my laptop but for some reason it wont work on my main pc. I used rescue cd http://www.sysresccd.org/Main_Page/ to partition the hard disc to 250gb for windows and 500gb of free space. Then created ext3 70gb for ubuntu and 3gbish for swap and the rest free for a new data disc. Nothing - no grub nothing but it all looked like it worked. In summary - its lovely especially with Beryl for flashiness and I want better programming and shell access but it has a few niggles - I couldnt give this to someone who was reasonable with windows. From a user interface POV my 11yr old daughter didnt care what operating system she was in - she found the games in either - so it is easy to switch between gnome and windows - for 11yr olds :)

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[AP31R0N]

"By your own account, you didn't actually use linux, just attempted to install it - so you've no basis to make that judgment."

Actually, that PROVES his point. He *is* the mass market. Hell, that he has any CONCEPT or has heard of partitions puts him head and shoulders above most users. Most of my users (i'm a sys admin for about 90 ppl) think their monitor is their computer.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Romancer]

Damn your a jackass. Rather than actually address something you make flippant, ignorant comments and put on an air of derisive mocking.

"Why doesn't my car start sometimes?"
Because you're a jackass. Have some respect for others if you want it yourself. Otherwise expect these kind of responses in kind. I never picked you out in my post as the one who had to help others, I just thought that the whole idealist mindset of the Linux community was that people contributed to the improvement of the whole, made things better for themselves and others and released it back to the community. No, you don't HAVE to help others. You can be a jackass and even ssay that to their face when they ask for help. But don't think you look like a decent person or a good example of what other Linux developers want to be.

The whole comment: "Just because I am a Linux user (someone who uses Linux) doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to develop applications for free, doesn't mean I have to promote Linux, doesn't mean I have to help others for no compensation." means that you are a leech. Just another User. Just like the person you are dismissing for not being able to get through the installer because they are just a windows user. Not a programmer or computer science guru. Just a user like you.

The next time you post that Gimp is comparable to Photoshop, remember that you have no obligation to help others for free and the people that wrote the code that makes those types of programs better/comparable think otherwise. They take user comments and try and help them. Not shoot them down when they say they don't understand something. If you're promoting another piece of software as better or at least comparable to another, it's ignorant to ignore the reason it's even a discussion. FOSS is supposed to be for all of us. Not just leeches like you who advocate the software written by others and mock the users that still have trouble when they take your advice and try and use it.

This is Slashdot, where they have a section called "Ask Slashdot" for opinions and reccomendations. So the site is not all news or windows bashing all the time non stop like cynical people like you probably want from the sound of your comments. This is an open forum for discussion and your comments do nothig but show that there are discusting selfish hurtful leeches out there that can type. So just like you can post whatever you want, so can others. Even if it's not in the "Ask Slashdot" catagory, like a story about trying to use linux and being confused. And others are free to try and make it better instead of being selfish leeches and telling him that he is stupid since the Linux community touts that they are a collective making things better, but not for him or people like him. You post that you won't help. Good for you.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Virgil Tibbs]

What makes you think that Linux wants a share of the desktop migration? Anyway don't answer that question until you have read this: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org.nyud.net:8080/LNW.ht m It's probably the best, kindest advice you will get. One last tip: you wouldn't judge windows by it's install process - the windows xp installer is pretty unfriendly unless you want to wipe the disk and start from scratch. p.s. if you are a reasonably savy computer user how come it must be a no-brains process?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Virgil Tibbs]

Well, not actaully true. i agree that no-body would really weant to be in the situation having to install windows and that if for instance a virus nuked your xp installation on a dual boot computer - like happened to me, you would just leave the xp partition to rot and use ubuntu - like what i did. the reason i havent re-installed windows is because the sheer effort of installing windows and then click through all my program installers is mind numbing.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Virgil Tibbs]

Look at it this way: Step outside and take a look at all the different vehicles driving along the road. These are all vehicles designed with more or less the same purpose: To get you from A to B via the roads. Note the variety in designs. But, you may be thinking, car differences are really quite minor: they all have a steering wheel, foot-pedal controls, a gear stick, a handbrake, windows & doors, a petrol tank. . . If you can drive one car, you can drive any car! Quite true. But did you not see that some people weren't driving cars, but were riding motorbikes instead. . ? Switching from one version of Windows to another is like switching from one car to another. Win95 to Win98, I honestly couldn't tell the difference. Win98 to WinXP, it was a bigger change but really nothing major. But switching from Windows to Linux is like switching from a car to a motorbike. They may both be OSes/road vehicles. They may both use the same hardware/roads. They may both provide an environment for you to run applications/transport you from A to B. But they use fundamentally different approaches to do so. Windows/cars are not safe from viruses/theft unless you install an antivirus/lock the doors. Linux/motorbikes don't have viruses/doors, so are perfectly safe without you having to install an antivirus/lock any doors. Or look at it the other way round: Linux/cars were designed from the ground up for multiple users/passengers. Windows/motorbikes were designed for one user/passenger. Every Windows user/motorbike driver is used to being in full control of his computer/vehicle at all times. A Linux user/car passenger is used to only being in control of his computer/vehicle when logged in as root/sitting in the driver's seat. Two different approaches to fulfilling the same goal. They differ in fundamental ways. They have different strengths and weaknesses: A car is the clear winner at transporting a family & a lot of cargo from A to B: More seats & more storage space. A motorbike is the clear winner at getting one person from A to B: Less affected by congestion and uses less fuel. There are many things that don't change when you switch between cars and motorbikes: You still have to put petrol in the tank, you still have to drive on the same roads, you still have to obey the traffic lights and Stop signs, you still have to indicate before turning, you still have to obey the same speed limits. But there are also many things that do change: Car drivers don't have to wear crash helmets, motorbike drivers don't have to put on a seatbelt. Car drivers have to turn the steering wheel to get around a corner, motorbike drivers have to lean over. Car drivers accelerate by pushing a foot-pedal, motorbike drivers accelerate by twisting a hand control. A motorbike driver who tries to corner a car by leaning over is going to run into problems very quickly. And Windows users who try to use their existing skills and habits generally also find themselves having many issues. In fact, Windows "Power Users" frequently have more problems with Linux than people with little or no computer experience, for this very reason. Typically, the most vehement "Linux is not ready for the desktop yet" arguments come from ingrained Windows users who reason that if they couldn't make the switch, a less-experienced user has no chance. But this is the exact opposite of the truth. So, to avoid problem #2: Don't assume that being a knowledgeable Windows user means you're a knowledgeable Linux user: When you first start with Linux, you are a novice. from Linux is NOT windows: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org.nyud.net:8080/LNW.ht m

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Virgil Tibbs]

So, to avoid problem #2: Don't assume that being a knowledgeable Windows user means you're a knowledgeable Linux user: When you first start with Linux, you are a novice. From Linux is Not windows http://linux.oneandoneis2.org.nyud.net:8080/LNW.ht m

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Virgil Tibbs]

you could always get them to send you a free live cd that way you wouldn't have to install anything to test ubuntu, you still probably wouldn't like it after getting a slash-whipping but.... you do know what a live cd is? well if you don't google and wikipedia do and shipit.ubuntu.com is where you wanna go

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Virgil Tibbs]

I would politly suggest you took a new look at ubuntu in the light of all the new advice I politly await your rresponse it is heartwarming to hear you admit you spent 3 mins looking at it but please don't judge books by the cover

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Virgil Tibbs]

having said it was heart warming to hear you say you couldn't do it in 3 mins i am abit dissapointed you think ANY operating install should be easy or VERY QUICK. there is a very simple way - it wipes blank your whole disk.
anyway I have a question for you.
DO you want to install it?
If you do i am willing to help you out in anything that you don'tunderstand
please try not to be rude to me because in 8this8 post i'm being relativly human.........

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Virgil Tibbs]

you know, making provocative statements, doesnt always get you sympathy and agreement.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Ash-Fox]

Damn your a jackass.

From your posts, I feel that you make too many assumptions, generalize too much and work off stereotypes.

But don't think you look like a decent person or a good example of what other Linux developers want to be.

Boohoo, I won't support you in a non-support forum. You didn't ask for help either, neither did the original poster. They claimed something as fact, I pointed out he is lying, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I never picked you out in my post as the one who had to help others, I just thought that the whole idealist mindset of the Linux community was that people contributed to the improvement of the whole, made things better for themselves and others and released it back to the community.

Stop generalizing.

The next time you post that Gimp is comparable to Photoshop, remember that you have no obligation to help others for free and the people that wrote the code that makes those types of programs better/comparable think otherwise.

No, I don't have any obligation to help another for free. I don't have any obligation to continue my opensource projects, nor do I have any obligation to help others -- I still do.

But no, I will not help people who don't ask for it in a non-support location.

means that you are a leech. Just another User.

What? I don't have a obligation to. I still do it anyway. You must be twisted in the head if you think that us developers, users and so on are obligated to help people for no compensation. I don't see it, especially in this world.

That said, I still help people daily over IRC, but I know I am not obligated to. I still send in small patches, develop, but I am not obligated to. I send in bug reports, but I am not obligated to. If you want me to be obligated, pay me.

. Just like the person you are dismissing for not being able to get through the installer because they are just a windows user. Not a programmer or computer science guru. Just a user like you.

Did you know developers are users too?

I also don't expect users who chat on my IRC network to help, I don't expect users who use my opensource projects to help either. They certainly don't have any obligation to as I'm not paying them.

Rather than actually address something you make flippant, ignorant comments and put on an air of derisive mocking.

I am tired of people lying about facts.

Not shoot them down when they say they don't understand something.

I don't go into a car festival, bust into a mechanics area and claim that engine X sucks and engine Y rules because I couldn't get working in my car, which has engine Y preinstalled, despite the fact that engine Y is harder to install manually.

Cars are voodoo to me. I don't even know why cars always flash warning lights on start up (No, don't bother answering that). I don't get why it tells me the battery is low and there is no fuel when the car won't start when that isn't the case. People aren't literate in everything, that was my point earlier.

Some people don't know computers that well, and no matter what you do.. There will always be confusion, same goes for me and cars.

But, I don't go around, going to a technical car forum claiming non-sense as fact without even the slightest bit of real research/evidence to back me up in what I say. I'm sure if I did, people would tell me I'm wrong and tell me why. Would they go "Do you need help?" on such blunt statements -- I don't think so.

This is Slashdot, where they have a section called "Ask Slashdot" for opinions and reccomendations.

There was no asking for help, nor is this a "Ask Slashdot" article.

And others are free to try and make it better instead of being selfish leeches and telling him that he is stupid since th

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[gerrytucker]

Thanks for the reply. You make very good points and I totally agree with all of them. I personally have not dealt with Ubuntu, but have been a Linux user off and on for many years (mainly for development purposes at home). Once I got it setup, I loved it for its purpose. But eventually I got tired of dual booting to use all of my hardware and found Windows equivalents to what I liked in Linux. The main point I was trying to make was that switching to Linux takes a lot of work unless you really know what you are doing. By install, I mean install something that works out of the box with just about 100% of the hardware you have and has very comparable software as well. The other hit that Linux will continue to take is that the window managers are not standardized across all installs. Given that I am comfortable with this, again no issue. However, you plop a non-computer / IT tech type down in front of a computer with a different looking system compared to windows and try to explain it to them, many will not like it. Case in point, my sister needed a new computer and I had an old one sitting around the house. No powerhouse mind you, but enough to do what she needed. I installed Suse (this was a few years back), Mozilla, openoffice ... the whole works. Sent it back to her (she lives out of state so I couldn't physically hand everything off to her) and explained how everything worked and was free and is just as good if not better than windows. Within a few months she bought a new computer because she could not deal with the "weirdness" of the system. Microsoft does a damn good job of branding, to the point that "Internet Explorer" is "the Internet" to many non-computer types. Enough of my rambling. Point is, software and hardware should start getting easier to use out of the box and less of a pain to maintain. I know the reality of the situation is that they are not and that the open source community is continuing to improve installs and package management to address this. I agree that people that say "I don't like computers" are in the minority, but I also think a vast majority of the population are saying "Just make the damn thing work with minimal work".

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not do a little bit of basic research on the net before trying to do the install?
It's really not that hard...
Don't judge a distro. by how (apparently) hard it is to do the rare task of installing it. Why not just try out the live CD instead ?
Besides, disc partitioning is a bit of a risky operation and it's a good idea to have at least some idea what's going on beforehand...

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Blain]

I'd suggest you give Ubuntu (I like Kubuntu because I like KDE) a look. It does pretty well with autodetecting hardware -- better than Knoppix did -- and maintaining it is pretty easy too. Actually, maintaining the packages is easier than in Windows, because Adept checks every day to see if there are upgrades available and prompts you to do the update if you want to. I know Windows has something similar for system-level stuff, but Adept does it for everything you've got.

It's not to the level it needs to be to take over the world, but it's ready for a whole demographic layer of folks who weren't ready to try Linux a few years ago. I'd aim it for folks who are pretty tech-savvy and adventurous, and to folks who are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the world of computers. The latter group I'd suggest it for because they haven't already bought into the MS branding -- they don't know what a computer's for, exactly, so they don't think they need Office and PhotoShop and IE. You can set them up with kubuntu on old hardware and have them functioning on something that couldn't run Vista, and would crawl with XP.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Romancer]

You just screwed your whole argument.

"There was no asking for help"

Then shut up about this not being a help forum and you not having to help someone.

Then you try and change the whole issue in this post: What was the specific lie in the original article/the original post that you're complaining about now?

Just admit that the whole purpose in FOSS community software is to use the talents of the masses to make software better. That's not too wide a generalization for you is it? The philosophy of the GPL? The mentality of releasing the code so others can improve on the foundation of others work? These things in your opinion are generalizations when the conclusion that people could possibly look at problems others face as possible issues instead of just dismissing them as user stupidity and pointing at the competition and whining that "They don't do it better so why should we try? They don't help the user, they make them dumber, stupid Windoze Loser"

What the hell good are you to the world if you can't even admit that others can see opportunity in the failure of some while you only see a chance to deny and mock. I never asked you to help, I never asked you to care. I only asked that some open their eyes to the constant disrespect of people not as experienced as you, while advocating a choice, proposing an alternative, that is held as a banner above Slashdot on a daily basis, that Linux is better, but hypocritically denying the simple fact that it has flaws that could be easily addressed if one but listen instead of jeer.

So have your mindless tangents about this not being a support forum while in the same post stating that anybody asked for help.

Keep referencing that your car confuses you and that's ok since you don't know of a site of car enthusiasts that praise the car you drive as the most wonderful thing and wonder why others don't get one because it's so much better.

Keep others from having the hope you must once have had. That they could, one day, understand the requirements of such a superior OS and how they ever lived without it. Reject their observations since you think that they are the problem, and besides, the other guys don't do it better.

Rationalize your closed mindedness to an empty room.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Ash-Fox]

You just screwed your whole argument.

I might have gone down a slightly different route, but certainly not screwed my entire argument.

I do find it interesting how soon after you do this post, I see that I've been modded down in another article suddenly. Somehow I don't think that was a coincidence.

Then shut up about this not being a help forum and you not having to help someone.

If someone complains that something sucks in a help channnel on IRC -- I'm more likely to actually see if they need help with it than debate the fact. So yes, this is very relevant.

Then you try and change the whole issue in this post: What was the specific lie in the original article/the original post that you're complaining about now?

Pink.

Just admit that the whole purpose in FOSS community software is to use the talents of the masses to make software better.

Richard Stallman thinks one of the purposes of FOSS software is not run into issues people cannot fix, like Richard Stallman and his printer many years ago.

That's not too wide a generalization for you is it?

Yeah, it is pretty much.

There are many reasons than just this for FOSS software, and this reason probably doesn't apply to everyone.

There are those who believe software should be free in general, hence FOSS. Others who believe FOSS is good for a security point of view (many eyes). There are those who believe other things too. And, if you want to know my stance... There are people like me, who in particular just like FOSS because we see it as superior, but don't care really too much for any philosophy it's connected too, the only reason why it's (in the group which believe this) used is because it's viewed as technically superior.

These things in your opinion are generalizations when the conclusion that people could possibly look at problems others face as possible issues instead of just dismissing them as user stupidity and pointing at the competition and whining that "They don't do it better so why should we try? They don't help the user, they make them dumber, stupid Windoze Loser"

And you have completely ignored my argument from earlier. I do not go into a car mechanics area, trying to show that I know all about cars (when I don't) then giving bad facts and bad opinions to said group. I certainly wouldn't expect the mechanics to just offer me help on the issue as much as debate me on the facts.

What the hell good are you to the world if you can't even admit that others can see opportunity in the failure of some while you only see a chance to deny and mock.

Who are you to come riding in on your high horse and imply that all Linux users are obligated to help others etc. I don't accept that crap from anyone. Not Linus, not Mark Shuttleworth and certainly not you.

Who are you to claim all FOSS users and developers think in a certain way. Do you even have any degrees in psychology?

I don't care if you are another FOSS developers, if you're a FOSS user, if you're richer than Bill Gates. You have no right to imply people are obligated to help, to behave professional everywhere etc. without compensation.

Who are you to think that you have the right to call me names? I have not sworn at you. I have been very civilized in my language. This also isn't a good way to convince me you are just merely offering advice, but rather in my opinion, just reciting old arguments to attack the Linux users/community/platform.

I only asked that some open their eyes to the constant disrespect of people not as experienced as you

It's disrespect to go into a mechanics clubs, claim a bunch of crap you certainly don't know about as fact and not expect to be corrected.

while advocatin

Sorry but...

[SamP2]

Y'know, there's such a proverb: "To piss off the bus driver, I'll buy a ticket and then walk all the way instead of taking the bus". That's what you are doing.

As long as you are the only guy in your company who does things "your way" as opposed to "their way", as long as you use OSS yourself but adapt it to MS software when used for any collaborative purpose, you are helping nobody and doing nothing but wasting time and being an extra pain in the ass for the sysadmin.

Neither Microsoft itself nor it's dominance is impacted if the whole company uses it's software on the main basis. You can be the black sheep and avoid MS stuff, but look: you STILL have to synch with that MS server, STILL have to produce documents in MS format, STILL have to synch with MS print servers... And so on and so forth. Neither MS's grip on the company (be it the technological slavery, the lack of following standards, or the money going down the MS drain) are reduced by your activism.

Not only that, but you completely and utterly defeat the purpose of using OSS if you are forced to adapt to MS on every single turn. What's the advantage in open document format if you have to produce all documents in Word format anyways? As much as MS formats are bad, even you have to admit that MS software does a better job at following THEIR OWN formats than you can do at following THEIRS.

If you want to be truly MS free, get your company to drop MS. Get EVERYONE to kick the habit. Work to reduce or stop corporate-level contracts with MS. Make open standards the CORPORATE basis, instead of using OSS as a slave to closed source. THEN, and ONLY then, will you actually make a difference, and only then your actions will actually have some result instead of being a waste of time.

Yes, you made your point that you can have a rose grow in the middle o a pile of turd... But guess what, as nice as the rose smells, it won't make the turd stink less unless the said turd is removed.

Re:Sorry but...

[QuietObserver]

I believe you're missing one key point. If the use of OSS, even if the end result is saved as a .doc, .xls, or any other MS format, is more efficient than using the MS software, the end result is the employee using the OSS is, in the end, doing more work in the same amount of time. While your arguments are, as a whole, based on a valid premise, the potential that the employee may show his employer that his way is superior, and results in better corporate income, it is possible that the company may rethink their corporate strategy and ultimately decide to rid the company of the wasteful MS software. This, from my point of view, seems to give the author of TFA a valid goal.

Allow me to offer an example. While I attended school, a number of my instructors required that I turn my work in via .doc files, but I had no interest or intention of wasting my time using MS Word. Instead, I produced my work in WordPerfect, then saved the finished result as a .doc file and turned that version in. My instructors never had any complaints with my progress, and I managed to finish my projects very thoroughly because I didn't have the horrid limitations of Word to deal with, so I could spend more of my time concentrating on the quality of the assignment than futzing around with the document to make it look the way I wanted/needed it to. I'll admit WordPerfect isn't OSS, but it is superior to MS Word, which is the basis of my point.

Re:Sorry but...

[secolactico]

If the reason why you switch from Windows to Linux is because you resent Microsoft, its practices or closed source in general, then yes, you are pretty much doing nothing in the grand scheme of things. Of course, every journey starts with the first step, so you might "infect" your co-workers and maybe eventually the company.

If, however, you chose oss because you feel more comfortable with it or need to run a particular software that doesn't run on Windows *and* your company doesn't oppose it, go nuts and to hell with the anti-ms agenda.

Re:Sorry but...

[vonFinkelstien]

Bah! I an author of textbooks and have to write collabrative documents that are used by my co-author and editor. I have a Mac without MS-Office. They both have Windows PCs. Guess what. My using Open Office or TextEdit, or Bean or whatever has not caused any problems or smell like a turd. For 99.9% of business uses, Open Office is seemless in a "MS only" workflow.

Re:Sorry but...

[SanityInAnarchy]

being an extra pain in the ass for the sysadmin.

I'd say you're less of a pain. You've got a secure system, so the admin doesn't have to worry about patching you -- you'll patch yourself if necessary, easily enough. You won't have spyware issues or program conflicts, meaning he won't have to come over to your computer to clean up the mess you've made.

And if you convince enough co-workers to switch, he'll have to learn a bit, but then he gets to admin Linux as well as Windows -- at a certain point, the extra work of knowing Linux is offset by how much less work it actually still is to manage a Linux network.

You can be the black sheep and avoid MS stuff, but look: you STILL have to synch with that MS server, STILL have to produce documents in MS format, STILL have to synch with MS print servers... And so on and so forth.

So by your reasoning, it would be a win for open source if the sysadmin switched the fileservers, print servers, auth servers, and so on over to Linux, and had people install the ODF plugin on their copies of Office?

I mean, I call that a win, but we've been doing shit like that for the past decade. The argument is never whether Linux is ready for the server -- Linux owns the server.

The argument is whether Linux is ready for the desktop.

Not only that, but you completely and utterly defeat the purpose of using OSS if you are forced to adapt to MS on every single turn.

Oh really?

So what is your brilliant alternative? Should this guy refuse to adapt to MS, and really be a black sheep in the office, so they force him to switch his computer back to Windows?

Besides, who's "slave" to whom? I'd say if you can completely avoid buying MS products for one workstation, without losing any functionality (including talking to MS products), that's forcing the MS products to work for you, not the other way around.

What's the advantage in open document format if you have to produce all documents in Word format anyways?

Because if the documents are anything you care about preserving, you still have them archived in ODF when Word support is dropped. In fact, you'll be able to read them 10 or 100 years from now with a new version of OpenOffice (or any number of other open word processors), and even export them to Word 2107, while your co-workers won't be able to read any of theirs.

Also, because then you prove that ODF can, in fact, replace Word as a storage format, which might inspire your co-workers, bosses, etc, to use the plugin to MS Office which stores documents as ODF.

And because even if the above don't happen right away, because you prove that you can interoperate, your co-workers will also be able to interoperate, so maybe one by one, you'll get people to switch, until the PHBs realize that it's possible to switch entirely -- at which point your department, or even the whole company, will be using Linux on the desktop, and only converting to Word when sharing with the outside world.

And finally, because to suggest anything else is to be just as arrogant and asinine as Microsoft is about their software. Basically, you're saying it would be better to insist everyone use OpenOffice than to include MS Office format support in OpenOffice. I want you to back up a bit and think about that.

And while you're at it, should we remove NTFS support from Linux?

As much as MS formats are bad, even you have to admit that MS software does a better job at following THEIR OWN formats than you can do at following THEIRS.

Not necessarily. In fact, OpenOffice does a much better job at reading very old formats than new versions of Word do -- and also does a good job at exporting for very old versions of Word, so if someone doesn't have Word2007, you can save the document as Word95 or Word6.0 for them.

If you want

Re:Sorry but...

[flyingfsck]

Not quite true - every individual who switches to Windows, reduces the support costs in that organization a little bit. This is a benefit even if the licensing costs are still the same.

Re:Sorry but...

[Kjella]

1) Eat your own dog food. If you can't stand up and say "I've successfully been doing my job using Linux for the last X months, and recommend we adopt it broader in the organization", you'll have even less credibility and it doesn't sound like he's in a position to make IT policy in the first place.
2) Even if it doesn't help anything at the office, you can help OSS interoperate better with MS networks and applications by finding and reporting bugs. Even if you could change the company, you probably couldn't change the world all at once so ir will need to co-exist.
3) Know your time. If your suggested change falls flat on its face, you're probably not going to get a second chance. Unless you're really sure OSS can do it, don't recommend it and the only way to really know that is to try it out thoroughly.

Re:Sorry but...

[NickFortune]

As long as you are the only guy in your company who does things "your way" as opposed to "their way", as long as you use OSS yourself but adapt it to MS software when used for any collaborative purpose, you are helping nobody and doing nothing but wasting time and being an extra pain in the ass for the sysadmin.

Furthermore, there's no point in walking anywhere unless you can walk right around the world. So until someone gets around to draining those nasty, inconvenient oceans, you might as well just sit on your ass, because if you can't walk everywhere there is to walk, then there's no point in walking anywhere at all.

If you want to be truly MS free, get your company to drop MS. Get EVERYONE to kick the habit.

I can see it now:

Linux Guy: I think we should migrate to GNU/Linux
Chief Technical Officer: I'd be interested in the results of a pilot project. Will it do everything we need in the company?
LG: I... um ... I think so...
CTO: You only think so? You mean you haven't tried this out for yourself?
LG: I was going to, but this guy on Slashdot said not to install it unless the entire company did, and, um ...
CTO: You're an idiot! Get out of my sight!

Yep. I expect that'd work real well.

Re:Sorry but...

[dave420]

The guy works at a company, not a advocacy movement. Microsoft works perfectly for most businesses, to trying to get them to change to something untested is pointless. Most folks don't give a rat's ass if their documents are stored in a closed format - they just care that their documents can be read by clients/colleagues.

Microsoft Windows is fine for the office. So is Microsoft Office. People don't just use it because they have to - many folks want to use it.

Re:Sorry but...

[madgreek]

The purpose of the experiment was to prove to myself that it can be done so I can go to the next level. My next step is to try a 10-15 person pilot to see what hurdles we face beyond just my pc. After that I want to bring in a few users in other offices and outside of IT. My mission isn't really to make the company Microsoft free. I just want IT to be in a position to make an intelligent decision about the OS when XP is no longer supported. Without having a Linux pilot for several months, I know that the perception will be that there is no way Linux can work for us on the desktop and we will blindly go to Vista. We may find out after the pilot that this is true. If it is I will be satisfied because we will have made the decision based on real data from our environment. If we don't do the pilot, some executive will declare Vista as the only option and then we will spend zillions of dollars upgrading all of our PCs and paying MS for tons of licenses. That's it. That's the whole purpose of the experiment. And, BTW, nobody should be playing games at work so those using games as an excuse to stay with Windows should pipe down. This experiment is for the working environment.

Re:Sorry but...

[Dan Ost]

Not completely seamless.

This may sound like a small thing, but I've recently seen examples where a document has a different number of pages than it did when viewed in MS Word. Something that is on page 50 in Word might be on page 54 in OpenOffice.

Anyone have any insight into why this is and how to fix it?

Re:Sorry but...

[Dunkirk]

I had the head of desktop support in my company ask about running Linux on our computers. I told him that it definitely would NOT run everything we used, but that it could serve just fine for most people. His second question was, "What virus scanner do you run?" I sort of laughed, and then realized he was serious. I told him that I didn't run one, since I didn't see the need. He told me very clearly that if were we to even consider running Linux inside the company that we'd have to get a virus scanner in place first. This is an example of the bias and the warping that working with only Microsoft products for 15 years does to a person. They don't even realize the unbelievable assumptions they're working with. It's downright scary. I'd be willing to have a debate on the merits of this issue, but I cannot accept the argument that we simply have to run a virus scanner because it's a "PC," and -- I can just see it coming -- if you can't get a virus scanner on Linux that catches N number of threats, where "N" is exactly the number of Symantec's corporate scanner, it's no good at all.

Now they've gone a hired a guy I really respect, and he's talking crap about how we need to automatically apply all patches to any Macs that we might get in the company, when we don't even do that to Windows! (Because it could break things, of course.)

The same guy is running around telling everyone that there are more patches in "Linux" than "Windows." Sigh. Didn't we get over this about 5 years ago? Now I've got to go dig up some anti-FUD on simple counting of vulnerabilities.

Re:Sorry but...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are actually a couple of virus scanners available for Linux (Clam AV, F-Prot), although I'm not sure how well they'd compare with your typical offerings in advertising...

They're probably most useful for file- or mail-servers serving Windows PCs in any case.

Re:Sorry but...

[obeythefist]

Was this guy hired to experiment with alternative operating systems on company time? Because from TFA, it looks like he's not one of the I/T guys.

So, he's

1) Violating company policy by installing unauthorised software
2) Violating company policy by removing the SOE placed on the company's workstation
3) Wasting company time by installing Linux instead of doing whatever it is he was hired for
4) Pissing off the I/T support to no end
5) Wasting a lot of their time when they have to reimage his PC because he manages to find something Linux couldn't do after all (like, some proprietary corporate app, gee we didn't think about that when we slapped the Ubuntu disk in did we?)
6) Violating company security policy by revoking the IT sections ability to supervise A/V protection, patching and data security (yes, data security is important under Linux too).

Frankly if this guy worked for any of the tier one companies I'm associated with he would be summarily dismissed or at the very least heavily reprimanded.

I'm not saying Linux doesn't deserve a crack at the workplace. But being a dickwad and installing software on the company PC that the company specifically doesn't want you to is just making Linux, FOSS and yourself look bad.

Let the IT guys work out which OS you can use. IT guys actually do know what Linux is. It's their job to evaluate OS technology and suitability for the enterprise, not yours. Seriously, some Linux "users" who don't have jobs in IT are the worst counterarguments for the OS I have ever seen. Amazingly management is going to listen to the IT guys before they listen to someone who isn't in IT but found some Ubuntu disks stapled onto a magazine (this does not qualify you to work in IT or subvert your corporate IT policy).

Re:Sorry but...

[NickFortune]

Was this guy hired to experiment with alternative operating systems on company time? Because from TFA, it looks like he's not one of the I/T guys.

The guy in TFA would be Mike Kravis. There's a link from TFA to his bio which gives his job description as "enterprise architect". So unless he designs buildings for a living, I think he probably IS employed to experiment with alternative operating systems on company time.

Let the IT guys work out which OS you can use.

I am an IT guy, thank you. I think you'll find a disproportionate number of Slashdotters are.

Re:Sorry but...

[jabuzz]

if you have never noticed that when moving a Word document from one computer to another both running Microsoft Word then you are either a liar or have very limited experience of Word. In essence it is down to the TrueType font render. You ask for 12pt Times New Roman and what you actually get depends on the output raster device, as the bitmaps returned are optimized for that particular output device. Leads to different font metrics which leads to shifting page breaks. It is easiest to see if you shift between a 300dpi based device (i.e. laser or HP inkjet) and a 360dpi device (i.e. a Epson/Canon inkjet).

Re:Sorry but...

[madgreek]

it looks like he's not one of the I/T guys.
Yeah, let the IT guys take care of it. I am the IT guy. I am the architect for the company who is responsible for the strategic direction. I am trying to experiment with Linux and have some real information (not opinions like most of you all) in order to decide whether it is worth pursuing any further. If you actually would read the article you would see that I am not asking the company to abandon Windows. I think the company should explore alternatives for the time when MS doesn't support XP anymore. I see no business reason to move to Vista at this point. We would have to upgrade almost every PC and for what purpose? If we don't do our homework on alternatives then we will blindly go with Vista and spend zillions.

Wasting company time by installing Linux instead of doing whatever it is he was hired for
I guess 45-55 hours a week is not enough for you.

Let the IT guys work out which OS you can use. IT guys actually do know what Linux is. It's their job to evaluate OS technology and suitability for the enterprise, not yours. Seriously, some Linux "users" who don't have jobs in IT are the worst counterarguments for the OS I have ever seen. Amazingly management is going to listen to the IT guys before they listen to someone who isn't in IT but found some Ubuntu disks stapled onto a magazine (this does not qualify you to work in IT or subvert your corporate IT policy).
It IS my job to evaluate technology. I am in the process of putting together an open source strategy for the company. I would like to add the OS to that strategy but not without some testing. It's a touchy support because people get religious about the OS.

Wasting a lot of their time when they have to reimage his PC because he manages to find something Linux couldn't do after all (like, some proprietary corporate app, gee we didn't think about that when we slapped the Ubuntu disk in did we?)
I don't run any corporate apps that aren't browser based. As far as tools go I used open source alternatives. Only Visio is an issue so I use Wine for that. BTW, I have already been reimaged several times in the past because Windows got hosed.

Good in theory

[kihjin]

I've been using Linux (LFS) on my home box since 2003.

However, at work I use Windows XP. The office I work in relies heavily on Nortel VPN + Outlook + Exchange for e-mail and calendar/scheduling access. Not to mention the application I'm working on is strictly for Windows (despite being written in Java, go figure). Most of the GUI code is WORA but there's some middle layer issues that will come up if not run on a win32 machine.

Too bad, I guess.

Re:Good in theory

[SanityInAnarchy]

Outlook + Exchange

I'm not sure, but I think this is a solved problem. I don't know if Kontact can connect to Exchange itself, but it can certainly connect to an open alternative, so we've got to be close, right?

Can't help you with Nortel VPN, though there are more than a few VPN projects for Linux. You may or may not be able to make Linux talk to it. You certainly could (in theory) create an OpenVPN server (there is a Windows client), but that would probably not go over well with management, especially given your other comment:

Not to mention the application I'm working on is strictly for Windows (despite being written in Java, go figure).

Sounds like a project in need of a managerial kick in the ass. Or is there actually a good reason for using Java instead of C# or something else Windows-centric?

I mean, probably too late now, but I have to wonder what Java has going for it other than WORA, or if you're actually planning to port it later.

Re:Good in theory

[wild_berry]

middle layer issues that will come up if not run on a win32 machine

DO you have the inclination, time or patience to make a compatible port? Could you get away with calling it 'code refactoring'?

Re:Good in theory

[kihjin]

It will never see the light of day outside of the company. Its use soley for internal purposes. I think Java was selected because that was the original developer's preferred language.

Re:Good in theory

[kihjin]

Given that the true purpose of the project has taken more than a year to be realized, anything beyond "getting it to work NOW" is not going to float well with management.

Wait wait wait!

[clarkn0va]

Some quotes from the linked article:

I am not saying that because I can be productive that everyone should abandon Microsoft and start a project to implement Linux corporate wide.

I don't hate Windows, although I am not a fan of Microsoft as a company. I do give Microsoft credit for creating a product that has changed computing forever. For companies with huge budgets it might make sense to continue down the Microsoft path.

If you take on a pilot, make sure you have a few people on the team who are not married to Windows or Linux. Get some folks with an open mind who are interested in the overall good of the company and are not married to a certain technology.

Some quotes from your sig:

Yes, I am a Microsoft Employee.

Ok, now please go ahead and educate us on bias.

db

Re:Wait wait wait!

[Macthorpe]

Let me then, as someone employed by an ISP and not Microsoft, point out just a part of the bias in just the summary.

When I first started my experiment I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of attacks from angry Microsoft worshipers Using Linux is not like being gay. Strangely enough there aren't many people calling for your blood when you don't use a particular OS. It's only when you try and force what you use on everyone else that they get testy.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[mangu]

It's only when you try and force what you use on everyone else that they get testy.

I agree, that's why I welcome an article showing how to quit using the OS that everybody has been forced to use.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[Macthorpe]

Forced in what way? By circumstance or by someone holding you at knifepoint?

I think you need to reassess the difference between "Use this because it's more practical when you're working with other companies" and "Use this because if you don't you're a morally reprehensible person who cares nothing for freedom from software oppression".

Re:Wait wait wait!

[Anonymous Coward]

At many companies, if you refuse to use Windows, then you are out of a job.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[Anonymous Coward]

@Macthorpe: "Use this because it's more practical when you're working with other companies"

Actually, it's "Use this because we'll have to pay much more to Microsoft if we don't sign the preferred license that requires we pay by the computer, not by actual usage, and so the monoculture appears more 'cost-efficient' than using what's best in each situation".

The cost-efficiency ("more practical" in your terminology) is indeed a valid point, but not as cost-efficient as you'd think. For example, some of our subcontractors have already moved to Office 2007, and since we haven't due to the extended compatibility testing / application rework required, we had a period in which we received unreadable documents even within the MS monoculture. (The solution was rapid mass deployment of Microsoft's Office 2003 plug-in that let's us load Office 2007 documents - thanks, MS!) And most subcontractors deliver PDF documents (or better, XML data with schema for easy reuse) and thus are platform-agnostic anyway, as I personally believe the corporate world should be.

However, even though the article says major corporations aren't deploying desktop Linux, that's not accurate. For example, my corporation (huge defense contractor) has deployed Linux on desktops in several domains where Windows just can't do the job. For example:

• 32-bit desktop Vista consumes a huge portion of the 3 GB available RAM compared to Linux or XP, and some of our toolchains can't fit in what's left and aren't 64-bit clean. (Microsoft doesn't support PAE on desktops - we tried that.) Since Microsoft is pushing very hard to get us off XP, some domains are simply and successfully moving to Linux. Actually, Vista has been so helpful to Linux vendor's sales presentations that I'm not surprised that Microsoft is demanding royalties. ;-)
• Some government-off-the-shelf software is written for Linux, so those who work primarily with these applications require linux on the desktop. (Again, I favor platform-agnostic formats, but the sword cuts both ways.)

Widespread adoption of Linux on corporate desktops is likely to be the last bastion of the monoculture approach, since big IT departments read "change" as "risk". But Linux is on everyone's radar scope (it's unusual not to hear it's deployment discussed in IT meetings), and the small holes in the dams are beginning to outnumber Ballmer's fingers.

We live in interesting times, indeed.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[houghi]

Yes, I am a Microsoft Employee.

Ok, now please go ahead and educate us on bias.

I hope you say the same to people here who help Linux and other OSS projects.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[fimbulvetr]

If it was communism and they wouldn't let you refuse to use windows, it would be forcing, otherwise it's not. You're always welcome to get another job. You don't really think things out much, do you?

Re:Wait wait wait!

[phoenixwade]

Strangely enough there aren't many people calling for your blood when you don't use a particular OS. You must be new here.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[maxwell demon]

That's not a bias in operating systems, it's an expectation about human behaviour. I'd also fear attacks from angry Linux worshippers if I tried to use Windows in an otherwise Linux-only business.
And yes, the huge majority of people won't care. But it's generally the minority of people you've got trouble with.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[bberens]

Strangely enough there aren't many people calling for your blood when you don't use a particular OS. It's only when you try and force what you use on everyone else that they get testy. This is patently false. At my office, and in may offices in corporate America we have these regulations regarding running virus scanners and software licensing checkers, and a slew of other things which are required to protect my company from various boogie men. If I toss a *nix machine on my work network there will be a shit fit.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[Macthorpe]

That wasn't the implication from the article:

I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of attacks from angry Microsoft worshipers not

I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of my sysadmin finding out

Re:Wait wait wait!

[datapharmer]

You'd be surprised... I was doing technical writing and documentation in an all windows shop and constantly got crap about it. Anytime something happened with the internet or a printer or anything the IT department would come yell (literally) at me and how my mac was screwing up their network. Never mind the fact that this was almost never the case and was usually a virus laden computer belonging to a boss who had a penchant for downloading porn at work. Strangely enough, I never heard a kind word when I was able to do layout and design work for a trade show that no one else new how to do with the windows computers. I decided there are better places to work and haven't heard a bad word about my mac since. So this may not be the norm, but it definitely happens!

Re:Wait wait wait!

[pfleming]

That wasn't the implication from the article:

I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of attacks from angry Microsoft worshipers not

I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of my sysadmin finding out Except that the admins were part of the implied "worshipers". He found out that they weren't as "religiously Microsoft" as he thought.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[_Sprocket_]

Using Linux is not like being gay. Strangely enough there aren't many people calling for your blood when you don't use a particular OS. It's only when you try and force what you use on everyone else that they get testy. Most people don't care - or even notice. But that's not to say nobody cares. You have to be careful about who it is doing the caring.

I've seen Microsoft fanboys dismiss Linux (and Unix in general) as well as MacOS just as completely as the whiniest of Mac fanboys or fervent of Linux zealots dismiss Windows. Technology zealotry is very much alive in all aspects of the IT world. And when IT decision makers are also the Windows zealots, anyone who wants to use something different has a hard path ahead of them.

Again - most people probably won't care. But the decision makers will feel that their authority is being challenged. And various supporters of management will come out of the woodwork likewise affronted by such deviation.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[Charles W Griswold]

I've seen Microsoft fanboys dismiss Linux (and Unix in general) as well as MacOS just as completely as the whiniest of Mac fanboys or fervent of Linux zealots dismiss Windows. Technology zealotry is very much alive in all aspects of the IT world. And when IT decision makers are also the Windows zealots, anyone who wants to use something different has a hard path ahead of them.
Speaking for myself, I don't dislike Windows because I'm a Linux zealot. On the contrary, I switched to Linux because I grew to detest Windows so much. The switch was painful -- Linux does (or at least did back then) have a nasty learning curve if you jump straight from Windows -- but I never regretted the switch.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[_Sprocket_]

I should note that I use "Microsoft fanboy", "whiny Mac fanboy", and "Linux zealot" as stereotypical labels. Sometimes the labels are used with some accuracy. In those cases, we do have people who really get wrapped up in the emotional aspect of their choices and have a hard time producing any kind of rational argument to explain those choices (or criticisms). Other times, someone using such labels is really saying "I don't agree with your choices." And very rarely does the Windows / Microsoft crowd own up to the fact that irrational behavior exists in their corner of the IT world as well.

As for me... I'm a Linux fanboy. I first started using Linux because I needed to learn something about Unix for a job opportunity. I picked up a cheap, used whitebox PC and installed Linux. After a few months of using Linux and working with HP/UX and Solaris... I came to realize that I just liked the Unix world better than the Windows one. A couple years later, I find that for me it is Windows that's the niche OS and Linux my primary desktop / environment of choice.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[kaidadragonfly]

Working on a piece of software is not the same as being paid to work on a piece of software.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[mangu]

If it was communism and they wouldn't let you refuse to use windows, it would be forcing, otherwise it's not

The judicial systems of the United States and the European Union beg to disagree. Microsoft has been found guilty of illegal monopolistic practices in both the USA and the EU. Guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, since they have run out of appeals in both cases.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[fimbulvetr]

I was talking in context of getting any arbitrary job and being given the requirement that you must use windows. I wasn't arguing that ms wasn't or isn't a monopoly. Simply being offered a job that requires the use of windows isn't, in and of itself, being forced. One has a right to not take this job and get any other job that doesn't have windows as a requirement.

Good idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's get this straight...you have been playing around with operating systems and different applications at work rather that, you know, "doing work".

I can't stand people like you. If you want to be a sysadmin, fine. Quit and do it.

We have gone through this every few years at my work and i was once a zealot. Now i have moved up and i see the real cost of a change over. After all the sums are done, it is very hard to sell this to even the most tech agonstic management.

Go and try and do this work properly. Put in your business case for a different OS and do the sums on how much it will cost your business. Explain where you will save money....sure, you save on the licence fess but there are plenty of other costs.

Train your admins, train your support staff, train your users, organize the deployment and upgrades of the OS but minimise user's downtime, make sure all the third party peripherals work such as all the printers and scanners, not to mention all the different desktop hardware in use, make sure you have drivers for everything, oh and the big thing, exec don't like risk so to allay their fears you will have to pay a third party company that supports your chosen linux distro in the case you have a problem. Ouch...there goes your license cost savings.

Ok, now what is your break even date. One year, three, 10 years? I notice that you still use VMware with Visual Studio and XP. I hope you are legit and pay those license fees! BOOM! So in the end, you will not save anyone money, disrupt business and for what?

Re:Good idea...

[arcade]

Let's get this straight...you have been playing around with operating systems and different applications at work rather that, you know, "doing work".

Let me get this straight. You think learning more about computing is a .. waste of time?

I can't stand people like you. If you want to be a sysadmin, fine. Quit and do it.

I can't stand people like you. People who think that people should do only one thing and not learn about other things. People with a variety of skills tend to be more productive.

Go and try and do this work properly. Put in your business case for a different OS and do the sums on how much it will cost your business. Explain where you will save money....sure, you save on the licence fess but there are plenty of other costs.

There are also plenty of gains. People get to fiddle with things they actually care about. In addition to doing work. They learn new skills. They gain more knowledge. If they do this out of free will instead of it being forced upon them - they learn quite a lot. This is a net win.

What you seem to not realize is that some people may do the changeover without actually putting extra demand on the infrastructure. This guy doesn't need any extra support from the IT department. That means he won't cost anyone anything.

Train your admins, train your support staff, train your users, organize the deployment and upgrades of the OS but minimise user's downtime, make sure all the third party peripherals work such as all the printers and scanners, not to mention all the different desktop hardware in use, make sure you have drivers for everything, oh and the big thing, exec don't like risk so to allay their fears you will have to pay a third party company that supports your chosen linux distro in the case you have a problem. Ouch...there goes your license cost savings.

No, there you go out on an extremist limb and lose all credibility. If the users who do not require extra help change over, they gain extra knowledge in doing so. This is a loss in the very short turn. It's cost-neutral in the short term, and a gain in the medium to long turn.

Arguing that everyone should change over at once is insanity. Both if you go from XP -> Vista, or XP -> Linux. If those think they can manage on their own go over to linux (or vista) when they want to - it won't cost anything extra. It probably won't even affect productivity as most people have a little extra time now and then when they can do this.

As long as you don't force people to adapt to something new, but they do it out of their own free will - you do not lose anything. You do, however, gain knowledge and experience which will help your company in the long run.

Re:Good idea...

[808140]

Your comment about learning is all well and good, but if you've been hired to say, work on a project at a company, and you spend company time and resources installing your favorite operating system on the company computer instead of working on said project, you most certainly are costing the company money -- most obviously because you are getting paid a salary to do something that you aren't doing, but there's more to it than that.

I actually did this at my last job -- I hate Windows and I installed Debian without anyone noticing, which took a fair amount of hacking, because our network was locked down well. I found a loop-hole and managed to do a net boot, and after many hours managed to get Debian running. At the time, I would have said that I was more productive, and after a fashion, perhaps I was, but it ended up causing no amount of grief to everyone around me because I didn't do things the same way they did.

Now this was several years ago and OO.org was not as mature as it is now, so I ended up having a lot of problems with doc and xls files, of which there were many. Our company standardized on Lotus Notes -- which doesn't run on Linux -- and I never managed to get it running under WINE, despite reports that it could be done. But other than these small, personal issues, I caused the IT department no amount of pain and trouble. They were used to being able to work with all the Windows machines in a standard way -- suddenly, mine was on the network as a Samba server, which, predictably, was not properly configured by me -- Samba is complicated and their policies were not simple -- and security updates and policies could not be applied to my system. Now granted, I was running Debian, but Debian has security issues too. It just so happens that I was appropriately anal about security, but suppose I hadn't been? See, there's also the issue of accountability. If someone hacks one of our systems, it's nominally speaking the IT department's fault and they have an established flow for dealing with those sorts of things. Well, if my system had been compromised, it's not like upper management would have magically known that the IT department had no control over my machine -- they would have gotten a ton of flack. And then, if they admitted that they had no control over my machine, they would have caught flack for that, too. Heads would of rolled, and not just mine. In retrospect, it was a colossally stupid thing to do, completely self-centered, and it showed no respect whatsoever for the people who are on call 24/7 to fix the substantial IT infrastructure at a company the size of ours.

Now, it turned out, ironically, be to be relatively useful -- it allowed us to pioneer the development of what turned out to be a relatively large project that ran on Linux servers (and as far as I know, still does today). But this was, you have to understand, blind luck. Windows was the wrong choice for the project, and had my computer not already been running Debian, we would have acquired a machine that did. So the end result would have been the same, although it might have run on Redhat instead, and perhaps I wouldn't have been as central to the project as I ended up being.

The point, though, is that you do not live in a bubble, "your" computer at work is actually the company's property, to be used for work and not for play, and although you may sit in front of "your" computer most of the time the system administration duties are generally done by someone else in another department who is going to hate you for making his life more difficult than it already is, even if he likes Linux well enough himself.

To your point about learning, Linux is free and runs on every kind of hardware imaginable; the place to install it therefore is at home on your own box. But wait, you say, you already have Linux installed on your box at home? Well then, what are you going to learn from installing it at work?

While I sympathize with your position, being a Linux fan myself, I have to agree with the GP's comment, even if it was worded a little bit harshly. On company time, do what you are paid to do.

Re:Good idea...

[glitch23]

Train your admins, train your support staff, train your users, organize the deployment and upgrades of the OS but minimise user's downtime, make sure all the third party peripherals work such as all the printers and scanners, not to mention all the different desktop hardware in use, make sure you have drivers for everything, oh and the big thing, exec don't like risk so to allay their fears you will have to pay a third party company that supports your chosen linux distro in the case you have a problem. Ouch...there goes your license cost savings.

This paragraph is referring to Linux costs but without knowing that you would be able to apply the exact same issues to Vista (and throw on Office 2007 for good measure) except of course the 3rd party associated with the Linux distribution.

Worship...

[amccaf1]

I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of attacks from angry Microsoft worshipers

I'm just wondering... Are there a lot of Microsoft worshipers out there? I mean, I know people who use MS because they are forced to. I know people who use MS because they aren't tech-savvy and don't know any other way. But I can't -- off the top of my head -- think of ever meeting anyone who defended MS to the death because of the way they implemented something...

The closest I think I've come to a pro-MS person was dealing with pro-PC people who really weren't pro-MS but were just sick to death of pro-Mac people. ;>

(In fact, in conversations with my non-tech friends/family, whenever they complain about computers it is almost always the case that they complain about some oddity in a MS product. Usually it's a variation on: "I was using MS Word and it suddenly decided to change my layout without asking me!" )

Re:Worship...

[GFree]

I think the people who APPEAR pro-MS are actually people who are simply anti-Linux-fanboy.

If someone observes people continually praising Linux and yet their own efforts to get it to work for them have failed, then it's a common reaction to despise the fanboys/zealots who can see no wrong. Hence, by going after them, they appear to be pro-MS. There's no middle ground in some people's eyes.

Re:Worship...

[Conor Turton]

I think the people who APPEAR pro-MS are actually people who are simply anti-Linux-fanboy.

Exactly. I for one am sick to death of hearing shite such as "We've managed to get Linux running on this condom. Can't do that with Windows." Who gives a shit? Does the computer do what I want? Does my hardware work? Yes. So I, like 99.99% of the PC using world, couldn't give a rats arse what the OS is that's running as long as it's doing what I paid for.

Re:Worship...

[ScrappyLaptop]

Funny comment, that.

I was given an old P-233 Sony, one of the little ones with a 1024 x 480 screen. A drive refresh from the CD produced an unstable Win98 system with an old version of IE that choked on any modern website. A couple of evenings later, it runs Puppy quickly and smoothly from a CF card instead of a HDD, greatly increasing battery life while reducing heat and noise. Runs in ramdisk, only dumping to flash when a session is ending. Even Wifi was quick to set up. So, you see, in some cases, the OS it is running DOES make a 'rat's arse' of a difference, in this case the difference is 'unstable POS' verses 'very usable and improved web browsing experience". I had to care what OS it ran. And I even tried to make the original OS work.

Re:Worship...

[lukas84]

Disclaimer: I'm an MCSE and currently work for a Microsoft Partner - still, it's my honest opinion.

I would call myself "pro-Microsoft Software". Mainly because i actually like most of their software, and think that they currently the best Business Desktop and Collaboration products.

That doesn't mean that Microsoft software is perfect, or that Microsoft the company is a good company. There are many idiosyncrasies in their products, mainly to retain backwords compatibility (which is a key point in the Microsoft market).

The problem i've seen most often is that people think that Microsoft software is easy to use. It's not. It's just as complicated as every other operating system out there - and in some areas Microsoft offers much more features than the competition, making Windows even more difficult to learn. I've seen many people which lack the necessary clue to debug permission problems on Windows, while this usually isn't true for Linux admins.

Incompetent Microsoft admins are also what gives many Microsoft products a bad name. It's important to listen to users and solve their problems - most of them come from stupid default settings supplied by Microsoft, or from missing knowledge. Windows offers a GUI for most things, and thus it looks like it's easy. But it's not. In several areas, Windows is a lot more complex than Linux, mostly because it offers features that simply don't exist on Linux, like Active Directory (Active Directory is an umbrella term for LDAP/Kerberos/Central Policies/LDAP Replication). As soon as you start to implement something like Active Directory, you're much more developing than implementing, currently leading to many homegrown solutions. And the Enterprise market wants standardization. (I believe novell has a product with a similar featureset, called ZenWORKS)

A few years back, i've started my IT career with Linux. I'm still using Linux for infrastructure (Webservers, Routing/Firewall/VPN), but not on desktops. During my apprenticeship, i came to appreciate Microsoft software and learn how it really works.

Re:Worship...

[lixee]

But I can't -- off the top of my head -- think of ever meeting anyone who defended MS to the death because of the way they implemented something...

You've clearly never spent much time around Digg.

Re:Worship...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a matter of worshiping MS. It's simply using the tools to get the job done. As much as we might dislike aspects of MS, there's no denying they rule the world -- if you need to work in an office environment, you have to use the tools.

You may as well be pissed off at Big Oil. There are the few who've decided to convert their auto to run on McBeef's used oil, a few who've raised windmill generators on their farms, and a few who just decided living on the grid isn't their thing. For society at large, living a normal life is more important. Paying the bills, getting to work, and raising the kids to be reasonably adjusted is more important. And that means padding the pockets of Big Oil. And using the standard desktop toolkit at work. Your choice, use it or don't.

If I was the network admin of your shop and discovered you'd installed a non-standard OS on a company desktop, I'd do everything I could to see you didn't come back tomorrow. It's difficult enough to support the typical business network without rogue employees subverting the standard build. Standards -- whether you agree with them or not -- are in place for a reason.

The most important vote is the one you cast with your feet. MS is the office standard. If it bothers you that much, walk.

Re:Worship...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are forced to use laughable outdated hardware that's no business of ours, homeless boy. Keep playing with your old "computer" found in the trash while we happily run Vista on real, expensive computers that can actually do stuff.

Now go back to your filthy alley and eat the remains of our dinner you scroung from garbage bins while we drive our SUVs and laugh at your poverty.

Re:Worship...

[backwardMechanic]

Incompetent Microsoft admins are also what gives many Microsoft products a bad name.

I'm a Linux/Unix user, and no fan of Microsoft, but that's one of the smartest comments I've read around here for a while. Like all those journals that have stopped accepting Latex submissions, choosing to accept only Word files instead. It's not actually Microsoft's fault, but it feels like it is. The problem is really cheap admins who don' know better, and the companies that keep hiring them.

Re:Worship...

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Windows XP and I like it. This is because:

It very rarely crashes. YMMV but I've had Linux crash on me as well.
It plays all my games.

It's secure enough for me to have not had any problems since I started using it a few years ago.

When Linux does something I can't do on windows and that I want to do, I'll move. Till then, I'm happy with XP.

Re:Worship...

[Conor Turton]

Funny comment, that.

I was given an old P-233 Sony, one of the little ones with a 1024 x 480 screen. A drive refresh from the CD produced an unstable Win98 system with an old version of IE that choked on any modern website. A couple of evenings later, it runs Puppy quickly and smoothly from a CF card instead of a HDD, greatly increasing battery life while reducing heat and noise. Runs in ramdisk, only dumping to flash when a session is ending. Even Wifi was quick to set up. So, you see, in some cases, the OS it is running DOES make a 'rat's arse' of a difference, in this case the difference is 'unstable POS' verses 'very usable and improved web browsing experience". I had to care what OS it ran. And I even tried to make the original OS work.

See what I mean? This is exactly the bullshit posted by the Linux Zealot brigade. NOBODY BELIEVES YOU BECAUSE A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME AND HAD PERFECTLY DECENT STABLE WIN98 PCS. Here's a clue: Windows 98 was first running on PCs far earlier than the P233 Sony and would have been the OS installed on that laptop.

Re:Worship...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've met a few people who were actual, genuine Microsoft fanboys, who eagerly anticipated every new product release from Microsoft, hyping it before the release and praising it once they had tried it.

These people were all semi-savvy computer enthusiasts. I say semi-savvy because while they might know a more about their computer than average, they were mere users of applications, not programmers or other computer professionals. Additionally, they had little or no experience with non-Microsoft operating systems, so while their fanboyism may be justified in the case of Microsoft apps that used to have competition, their Windows fandom was based only on comparing it to MS-DOS. Or maybe it was just that they actually bought everything in the marketing material; they certainly seemed to be repeating a lot of it.

Several of these people have since become disillusioned with Microsoft.

Re:Worship...

[ScrappyLaptop]

Um, okay...I think I hear your WoW clan calling you from your Dell/Alienware box...

Regardless of the value or performance of the hardware I admin at work and build or use at home, I enjoy optimizing the OS and applications to meet hardware limitations. One such limitation that many companies are being forced (to use your term) to pay attention to is minimizing energy usage without compromising the performance of the 'server' in question beyond acceptable parameters. Pentium 233 or 8-way server, many of the same issues are at stake and it's not a bad area of interest for the foreseeable future...

By the way, as far as being able to actually 'do stuff' as you so eloquently put it, that throwaway lets me read Slashdot out on the deck for eight hours between charges (if I read all the dupes, that is). Try THAT with your Vista-powered laptop, Junior...

Exchange Support

[Anonymous Coward]

A serious mail client with complete Exchange interaction, even if slow, I'd switch in a heart beat. VMWare doesn't count unfortunately for me.

Re:Exchange Support

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's being worked on.

There is GOOD support out there for groupware systems other than Exchange, and some of those (I think) can interoperate with Outlook. But there's not complete Exchange interaction.

Still, I think it's included on the Kubuntu LiveCD -- or if not that, I can probably find a LiveCD that has it -- so you could try it out for a day, see how well it works? Then again, it probably takes a bit of tech savvy to get it working right, especially on a LiveCD...

Re:Exchange Support

[flyingfsck]

In my experience, Evolution works better with Exchange, than Outlook works with Exchange.

Re:Exchange Support

[Blackheim]

This is either lies or you do not have much experience at all with Exchange

Re:Exchange Support

[masdog]

Just out of curiosity, what are some of those groupware applications? I know it comes up on Slashdot every now and then, but I can't seem to recall what those packages are.

Re:Exchange Support

[SanityInAnarchy]

Follow the link, you lazy bastard.

Chickens and Eggs

[Shihar]

So long as compatibility with the rest of the world is an issue, Linux and OO are never going to make strides much bigger than the ones they have now. There are some small businesses that can probably get away with going to a nice open standard, but for the majority of the corporate world, the demand to operate with everyone else inside and outside of your company means that you need to use the standard, even if the standard is closed. OO is nice and all, but you would have to put a gun to my head before I would make something in OO and send it to a client who is using windows. I would want to see the file working in the windows environment before I would be willing to send anything important to a client... and if you have to double check on a windows box to make sure that what you made in OO looks the same in MS, other than feeling good about yourself, what exactly is your company gaining from the switch?

Linux and open standards would work awesome for companies if everyone was to adopt them. The problem is that a significant chunk of companies need to adopt them before you get any real benefits other than a slightly small software bill and a warm fuzzy feeling, which are quickly erased when a customer drops a contract because your OO document screwed up when running on MS. To make matters worse, OO really is not as good as MS in many respects. Excel and Power Point trounce the OO equivalents. Sure, you can tack on extra capability because OO is well, open, but your average HR person or busy engineer is very unlikely to pick up an extra programming language so that they can add tools that they need.

Linux and OO faces a chick and egg problem. An open standard and open software that has everyone working on it would produce a massive amount of capability and probably lead to a very competitive product. Open standards would ensure that everyone could talk to each other, while open software would lead to rapid advances in capability. Until a critical mass goes for it though, it is a pretty hard sell to most companies.

Re:Chickens and Eggs

[Ash-Fox]

when a customer drops a contract because your OO document screwed up when running on MS.

I've never heard of that happening over a document messing up for whatever the reason.

Re:Chickens and Eggs

[Macthorpe]

I've had clients threaten to take their business elsewhere because of an Excel report that had some incorrect formatting, so it's not too far-fetched (unfortunately).

Some businesses are more reasonable than others

[pwizard2]

At my last job, (a small graphic/web design shop, advertising firm, and ISP all rolled into one) we routinely used both Linux (Ubuntu and a few Gentoo boxes as our deployed systems) and Windows in the same workplace without problems. When I left, we were getting ready to phase out a proprietary kiosk system (Scala-based software) and replace it with our own homemade Gentoo+Firefox kiosk system. Much of our ad management stuff was PHP and MYSQL-based, so it didn't matter what OS you used, and we were free to decide what to use as long as we got our wok done.

The chain of command was also very lenient and open-minded; As employees, we were actually encouraged to learn and experiment with new things because if we found alternative solutions (if they involved free FOSS, so much the better), it was ultimately good for the company.

Re:Some businesses are more reasonable than others

[WallyDrinkBeer]

Where I work is the exact opposite. We design software for windows only. We subscribe to all the expensive microsoft developer/reseller junk.

We only have about 10 employees and have full microsoft exchange, servers and junk.

We have no real network administrator, we're just a bunch of developers. When we were having trouble with exchange, I suggested we just use the google apps email solution - much easier for a small company.

It was like I strangled a kitten, the owner told me that we were a microsoft company and didn't want to hear such things again.

I don't tell them I use ubuntu and osx at home.

Baby steps.

[altinos.com]

So what you're saying is that it was a wasted effort to convert one desktop to Linux, and only means something if he got the entire company to switch. That's ridiculous. How many companies switch everything over at once based on the opinion of one lowly worker without proving that it works first?

I think it was an excellent idea, and this may convince other people to convert, since he proved it can be done.

It's not that uncommon

[bytesex]

I used to use Gentoo at the old job, and am now back at Fedora where I work. Sysadmins really would like you to use windows, but they don't care that much; they simply state that you're on your own when you don't use windows. Outlook was a bit of a thing, though everyone who runs exchange these days, runs OWA too. The plugin for evolution isn't entirely bug-free though, and refuses to reconnect when something bad happens.

Also, that powerpoint replacement in OO works, but it's heavy, much heavier than powerpoint on the CPU, or so it seems. People here like to produce database schemas in Visio (yeah, I know) and that _is_ a problem; I need a virtual windows desktop for that. I tried running visio under wine and it works; it just crashes when they give me their documents.

Lastly, windows logon - isn't there some tool out there that plugs into IIS on the one side, and allows you to change your windows network password over the web ? Or better still (and not use IIS); something that does the same in apache (do they use LDAP ?) ?

Re:It's not that uncommon

[cerberusss]

For Visio, you could try running it with the commercial version of Wine, Codeweavers' CrossoverOffice. Visio 2000 has silver status, Visio 2002 and 2003 have bronze status.

Re:It's not that uncommon

[Anonymous Coward]

I use a similar setup. I don't dual-boot. I have a Windows machine and a Linux machine. Makes life very simple. Windows is only for altering MS_office documents produced by others and for Visio. There is no serious competitor for Visio on Linux. I would like to know if there are commercial packages on Linux and Windows that can do most of what Visio does, but compatibility is not important. All my documents are wiki-oriented, diagrams or text. I use OOo for presentations/spreadsheets that I make. Again, compatibility is not important to me. If anyone asks for the source of my presentations/spreadsheets, I give them my OOo document and ask them to install OOo.

Re:It's not that uncommon

[bytesex]

There was this Russian dude who had analysed the visio format well enough that one could make an app for it, but I've lost the link (and yes, I've tried Googling). Does anyone know it ?

Re:It's not that uncommon

[bytesex]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but my current set of bookmarks is limited to this:
http://www.redferni.uklinux.net/visio/
and:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/vsdump/
And I'm sure there was a third one, one that went even further, but I've lost him.

Re:It's not that uncommon

[arbbie]

Lastly, windows logon - isn't there some tool out there that plugs into IIS on the one side, and allows you to change your windows network password over the web ? Yes there is. In outlook web access select "Options" and at the end of the page is the button "Change Password" which will allow you to change your windows password.

OpenOffice still has lots of problems ...

[Lazy Jones]

I don't believe you're a frequent user of Excel/Word/PowerPoint. Neither am I and I was recently convinced by other people that OpenOffice still has many problems with compatibility (I use OpenOffice only but only do simple stuff). Word documents render differently and Excel diagrams look completely different (sort order is different, the labels look broken, OO just doesn't have sane defaults for some settings and doesn't save some settings in Excel files, the same goes for Impress vs. PowerPoint ...). As long as even non-techie Users can prove to you that OpenOffice can't replace MS Office for them, it's not a serious alternative.

Re:OpenOffice still has lots of problems ...

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, you are just complaining out of habit I think. It is easy to screw things up if you try...

Documents look different if you use different fonts. If you install either the MS true type fonts, or the Redhat freedom fonts, then the formatting issues go away. Excel macros can be a problem for some people, in which case Gnumeric is a better option. These points are well known to anybody who cares.

Re:OpenOffice still has lots of problems ...

[Bob54321]

I still require a VM running XP and office just to load up word documents with equations in them. They render very, very, very wrong in OOo. I get documents like this on almost a daily basis so it is still rather annoying. There is still a long way to go for full MS Office compatibility but it is a lot better than it used to be. In all honesty, if I could get Office XP or 2003 running under wine, then I would use that over OOo.

Re:OpenOffice still has lots of problems ...

[Lazy Jones]

Documents look different if you use different fonts. If you install either the MS true type fonts, or the Redhat freedom fonts, then the formatting issues go away. Excel macros can be a problem for some people, in which case Gnumeric is a better option. These points are well known to anybody who cares.

Fonts aren't an issue since I was talking about compatibility between OO and Office on Windows systems. Neither are Excel macros an issue since we don't even use them much.

Dupe!

[The Iso]

This must be about the fifth time I've seen this story. I love Linux, but is "Typical office worker tries Linux for a week!" really front page news anymore? I come here for information, insight, and fun, not masturbatory yellow journalism about how great Linux is for the end user. We all know the conclusions already, and this particular article is thin.

Elitist BS.....

[Rooked_One]

Use what works... quit complaining about M$.... IF it does the trick - then use it. If for some wierd out of this world reason you HAVE to use linux on your home PC... well.. good for you - it doesn't make you any better, and personally, i'm bloody sick of these articles submitted by linux geeks (i'm one, so if you take this personal, go fsck yourself) dogging windows all the time.

Its a dog eat dog world - look at the most powerful gov in the world and if you can't see that, then you need new spectacles or your lasik redone.

Re:Elitist BS.....

[SanityInAnarchy]

i'm bloody sick of these articles submitted by linux geeks

It's relatively easy to change your preferences so you won't even see anything from the Linux section.

Alternatively, you could skim the headline and move on to the next story, instead of coming here and trolling about it.

(i'm one, so if you take this personal, go fsck yourself)

Then it wouldn't have killed you to actually read TFA and see that it's got nothing to do with hating Windows or Microsoft. Someone tried Linux, looks like it worked for them.

If your complaint is about a particular elitist Slashdot comment, go reply to that. Otherwise, shut the fsck up.

Re:Elitist BS.....

[TheRaven64]

It's relatively easy to change your preferences so you won't even see anything from the Linux section. The problem with that is that Slashdot has no 'open source' or 'free software' category, so by filtering Linux you also filter out a lot of articles that are totally unrelated to Linux. I couldn't care less about most of the articles about Linux (this one was relatively interesting), but if I filter Linux then I miss out on a lot of articles I am interested in.

Re:Elitist BS.....

[petercruickshank]

Use what works... quit complaining about M$.... IF it does the trick - then use it. If for some wierd out of this world reason you HAVE to use linux on your home PC... well.. good for you So I guess you're one of those newfangled Linux users who hasn't heard of the Free Software movement or Richard Stallman.

Re:Elitist BS.....

[ProphetNine]

AMEN! Geeeeeez, I get tired of the damn fanbois on BOTH sides, but the Linux 1337 are so disconnected from reality it hurts to read this stuff! I put Ubuntu on an older Winbook J4 to see what all the fuss was about, and out of THREE wireless PCMCIA cards, there were no drivers available, ALL of which "just worked" in XP. Needless to say, XP went back on the machine. WHO CARES?? Play with *nix if you want, but I don't need to be evangelized!

Fantasy

[fm6]

I create countless documents that people open using Word, Excel, PPT and nobody can tell that they were created using Open Office.

Then I can only assume that consistent formatting is not an issue with you and your co-workers. But it is with me, and my experience sharing files between MS Office and Open Office is uniformly negative.

Word processor and presentation formats are messy , and even the best filters make nasty mistakes. And Open Office filters are hardly the best.

Getting away from the Microsoft monoculture is a worthy goal. But if you seriously want to achieve it, you have to squarely face the practical problems you'll face — and the fact that most WP documents and presentations (spreadsheets are less of a problem) can't be shared between applications is something you can't wish away. Though God knows OSS zealots keep trying!

Re:Fantasy

[farkus888]

we don't have to wish anything away. office 2007 uses OOXML as the default format thanks to the open format scare with governments wanting to be able to read their documents years in to the future. something we saw becoming a hassle with MS changing the formats for each new generation of office, breaking backwards compatibility. since OOXML is an open format that we can all read the specs for the OO people are going to have much less trouble saving to and reading from it because they will know how. instead of being forced to guess around till they find something that sort of works to write and read a format they have never seen the specifications for.

Re:Fantasy

[flyingfsck]

Sigh - Install the Redhat freedom fonts, or the MS true type fonts. Obvious, isn't it?

Re:Fantasy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're after consistent formatting, then you shouldn't be using a word processor. Due to the way they work, it is impossible to guarantee consistent formatting of any kind, even between copies of the same version of the same word processor running on different machines.

OOo actually works great if you have people using both it and Word correctly. Headings are marked as headings, no fucking around with font sizes, using styles to change the look of classes of text, and so on. It tends to screw up if you have idiots using it (resetting the styles on each paragraph manually, for example, or making something a heading by changing the font, size, and making it bold). Not an issue in my case.

My experience is that you'll have no problems unless those you were exchanging documents with have no idea how to use the word processor, or they're complete control freaks (trying to abuse a word processor as a DTP program), or they're trying to cram stuff into a word processor that shouldn't be there (spreadsheets, charts), or on the rare occasion they're actually using some rarely used feature (equations) correctly, but there's such a huge difference between the MS way and everybody else's way that the conversion can not be done losslessly.

Re:Fantasy

[stubear]

Personally I'm tired of hearing OSS zealots whine about not being able to distribute and pass around word processing documents. First of all, why are you distributing word processing documents at all? Create a PDF and your formatting is maintained regardless of platform, etc. Unless you're working in a collaborative writing environment where others are going to be editing your work, there is no reason why you should be distributing a .doc or .odf file at all.

Re:Fantasy

[fm6]

Sigh. Fonts ane only a small part of the issue. It's making complicated layouts cone out the same that's hand.

Re:Fantasy

[fm6]

Well, it's true that people often distribute word processor or spreadsheet files when they should be taking a moment to export the documents to PDF—or better yet, HTML. But its also true that many documents have to be edited by more than one person. For example, in technical writing (my own job) manuals often get revised by different folks over a long period of time. Business and legal documents also often go through multiple revisions by multiple folk. These people must have the ability to share editable files quickly and easily. That's why a well-established program like Word has such a nasty degree of lock-in.

Re:Fantasy

[fm6]

Until you learn to use a shift key, your opinions on document management will lack any credibility.

Good luck with support....

[JakiChan]

Any project I've been involved with has been made MUCH more complicated by the requirement to support linux desktops. Since OpenVPN wasn't working on the Intel Macs (and this was about a year ago - yes it works fine now) we went with the Cisco VPN. Getting that to work for the Linux guys was a PITA - maybe that's Cisco's fault but one guy I opened a TAC case for just hadn't bothered to follow all the steps in the procedure we had worked out. Getting an 802.1x network to work was a pain - they were annoyed that they had to install and configure a supplicant. I get really tired of the extra effort required to support the linux users - the 10% of them take up as much effort as the Mac users (which make up over 50% of our desktops).

If you're going to run linux as your desktop then you need to be prepared to realize that support becomes your problem. It's YOUR responsibility to make it work with the solutions that your company has decided to support. Companies pick standards for a reason. Finding products with Mac + Windows support covers 90% of my users. If a product has Mac + Windows support then it'll probably work with linux, but if you come to me and complain that you can't get something to work on your gentoo system and it broke because you upgraded to the uber-latest kernel then I'll wish you good luck. If you're having network problems at home and are running custom linux firmware on your linksys router then good luck. If you want to run on the bleeding edge then don't expect me to bleed with you.

Re:Good luck with support....

[lukas84]

Hmm, the 802.1x stuff seemed to work quite smooth for one of our development guys, which uses a Ubuntu Laptop for certain Java tests.

802.1x was configured in Minutes by just using the GUI, after installing the gnome network manager using ubuntus install thingie.

We're using EAP-PEAP though, not EAP-TLS. And of course it's not as nice as connecting the machine and having it receive all the necessary settings througha group policy ;)

Re:Good luck with support....

[JakiChan]

We're using EAP-PEAP as well, due to the Windows folks (EAP-PEAP with MSCHAPv2 as the inner auth is just about the only thing you can be sure that Windows will support out of the box, although the Leonovo software works well for other schemes and most of our Windows folks have Thinkpads.) I don't know if they just overlooked it in the GUI but whatever at least one guy was running didn't have a supplicant that he could find.

For me, it's easy - I tell them that 802.1x is what is required, give them the details, and let them figure it out. They wanted to be their own sysadmins and I wish them well with that. :)

Re:Good luck with support....

[SanityInAnarchy]

Since OpenVPN wasn't working on the Intel Macs (and this was about a year ago - yes it works fine now) we went with the Cisco VPN.

Did it end up being harder to support the Cisco VPN for the Linux guys than it would have been to simply run two VPN solutions?

(Also, I think there is a Linux server that will talk to what Windows and Macs consider a "VPN" -- there is some feature of the OS that allows you to setup a VPN connection.)

Getting an 802.1x network to work was a pain - they were annoyed that they had to install and configure a supplicant.

Must've been awhile ago. When I installed Kubuntu for a friend recently, they just right-click on the networking icon in the system tray and choose to connect to a network, and they get all the config options right there (including WEP/WPA). I have no doubt the supplicant is still under the hood, but it's been made at least as transparent and easy to use as on Windows, and maybe as much as Macs.

Now, I have more problems with hardware that blatantly isn't supported, but even there, the biggest problem has been Broadcom, and it's now at the point where you just need to slice out some firmware. Took awhile to figure out the first time, and I'm sure it would be a headache for you, too, but at this point, I can do it in about two minutes from a LiveCD, even.

Anyway, it sounds like it'd be a great place for me to work, so long as you're at least aware of it. If you use a Samba or IPP printer, I'm fine, but if you use some vendor-specific network printing protocol (they do exist!), and I have problems (Linux supports some of them anyway!), I'm definitely going to come to you. But of course, if I can't get something to work because my Beryl is crashing, I'll fix it myself.

At least I can fix it myself. On Windows, the best I can do if something goes wrong is a format.

Re:Good luck with support....

[Anonymous Coward]

And any project I've been on that required any M$ junk has been far, FAR more unreliable, error prone, and easily the most massive support headache I've ever seen anywhere. The world would be a far better place if M$ junk would just drop off the edge of the world and die.

Re:Good luck with support....

[JakiChan]

I'm not talking about required Microsoft stuff, I'm talking about known standards that our Linux guys seemed to find a problem, like 802.1x. I'm talking about being tired of troubleshooting things because it broke when you upgraded the kernel. I'm tired of linux users not being up to the task of admining their own boxes and expecting IT to - when would any decent admin let someone who couldn't handle the box (like the user) have root? And who would want to support such a box?

Clippey's gonna give you away

[Tablizer]

"Is that a non-Microsoft OS you are trying to install? I'm going to tell the sys admin. Here, I'll help you write a confession letter..."

Re:right tool for the job

[Swampash]

I personally don't give a sh*t what operating system and/or applications I'm using so long as the combination DOES WHAT I WANT. In my personal situation, that means Linux on the server, OS X on my desktop and laptop, and Windows in a VM so I can run a few Windows-only apps when I need them. But I don't use any of them because I have some sort of emotional or religious attachment to them.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only one way to change these companies. By showing them that you can do all the things a Microsoft PC can do for less money and with much greater security and reliability, then your argument for greater effectiveness from open standards is just gravy.

This guy already has a job, and it's apparently not to decide the software on the company level. If he goes off like a lunatic and tells his bosses to change, he looks less credible and distracted. If he just gets the job done and lets them know how he did it for less, then companies might play around with MS free divisions and eventually migrate entirely.

His is the right way, yours is the wrong way. Lay off the crack cocaine, please.

I have to ask...

[SanityInAnarchy]

if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what.

Is OpenOffice not 100% compatible with Excel macros?

I ask because I remember hearing that it (or some other open source project) was 100% feature-complete, compared to Excel.

Anyway, 100% compatibility is never required, because you don't use 100% of the capabilities of Excel macroes. What you want is 100% of the features I need (be they parts of Excel macroes or otherwise), and as OpenOffice gets better, more and more people are finding that threshold has been crossed for them.

Even if you have 95% compatibility, it can be enough. Consider if you had to use a spreadsheet once a day or once a month for a few minutes that didn't quite work properly in OpenOffice. I realize many people would instantly abandon ship for MS Office at the slightest sign of trouble, but if it was just the one spreadsheet, you could probably fix it to work in OpenOffice -- or, worst case, you run one copy of Microsoft Office on a terminal server somewhere, and let everyone run Linux on the desktop for everything else.

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

Well, fucking DUH. I bet Windows is still far behind Ubuntu GNU/Linux when it comes to Linux compatibility, huh, Sherlock?

Re:I have to ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

what do 95% of compatibility have got to do with anything if the one feature i need is the one not covered by those 95%, huh, Sherlock?
not that i use office (ms or open) it's just rather stupid to say 'but it does support almost everything, just not what i need'...

Re:I have to ask...

[jimicus]

"Compatability with office" is a difficult thing. Particularly as most computing people don't actually make full use of Office's capabilities.

OTOH, go to the accounts department in any reasonably-sized company and you'll see positively scary things going on with Excel. No, nobody needs 100% compatability. But there are enough different users using and abusing Office that no two people have the same list of "things which must work".

Re:I have to ask...

[Bert64]

Excel is also known for getting fairly simple calculations wrong...
Openoffice also has the same flaws, probably implemented intentionally to be compatible...
Gnumeric on the other hand seems fairly accurate
Is it not a sarbanes-oxley rule that anyone signing off on accounts they know were created using a known flawed process (incorrect calculations in excel apply) they are held liable?

Re:I have to ask...

[jimicus]

The keyword here is "knowingly".

The type of spreadsheet I'm talking about, Excel making the odd incorrect calculation is the least of your problems.

Besides, my understanding of Sab-Ox is that it makes spreadsheets an absolute minefield - because spreadsheets make it trivially easy to change things, save it under alternative names and otherwise mess about with the numbers with no audit trail. My former manager has apparently succeeded in making a specific spreadsheet compliant - that was with a team of a few people basically reskinning Excel with VB macros and the like so the user interface looked similar but kept audit trails, enforced per-user access control on parts of the spreadsheet and removed functionality which was completely at odds with the regulations.

Re:I have to ask...

[TClevenger]

Or go to a company that uses heavily macro- and scripting-dependent Excel spreadsheets for reasonably routine documents, like expense report templates. The degree to which MS alternatives work depends on how deeply entrenched the company is with MS software.

Re:I have to ask...

[SanityInAnarchy]

"Compatability with office" is a difficult thing. Particularly as most computing people don't actually make full use of Office's capabilities.

No, that makes it easier.

But there are enough different users using and abusing Office that no two people have the same list of "things which must work".

Not exactly the same, but sometimes there is enough overlap.

Really simple, obvious example -- most people don't need PowerPoint. Therefore, no matter how much Impress is broken, it won't affect them at all.

I'm not saying that it's common for a whole component to be unneeded, I'm saying that it's common for some subset of features to be unneeded. And it is, in fact, possible to find groups of people for which, when you make a list of all the features that are needed by any of them, those features are all present and well supported by OpenOffice (or even KOffice). Which means, of course, the features which are broken in OO are things that particular group doesn't need.

For every group of people like that you get to switch, it helps -- at least it raises awareness. It means that, for instance, the next time someone decides to make a complex accounting spreadsheet, they might consider starting in OpenOffice, or creating it in a manner which is more portable than the macros they're used to. It also means we get more feedback as to what OpenOffice actually needs fixed.

Re:I have to ask...

[SanityInAnarchy]

what do 95% of compatibility have got to do with anything if the one feature i need is the one not covered by those 95%, huh, Sherlock?

Then it sucks to be you. There are going to be people out there who have all their needs met by that 95%. Submit a feature request, and maybe with the next patch, you'll be one of them.

Re:I have to ask...

[jimicus]

Let me tell you a story.

3 years ago I was looking for work. I found what looked like an interesting little role as IT manager (read: organ grinder and monkey, but mostly monkey) in a small company not far from where I live. The MD was clearly a bright man, business-wise. He'd taken a business which was hardly doing anything substantial and turned it into one which was making something like £6-10 million profit per annum with under 100 staff.

He was quite happy to explain that he'd done that by not spending money unnecessarily and by not employing people when he could get by without them. By way of example, he explained how they used a bunch of Excel spreadsheets with some clever scripting to handle a large chunk of the business - and about a year previously, he'd found that the workbook was getting rather unwieldy and difficult to work with. At the time, he was rather concerned that he may have to throw out the Excel spreadsheet and go out and buy a commercial package to do the work instead.

Then he discovered that it's possible to link formulas and cells between separate Excel files. Hallelujah! Suddenly he could make the spreadsheet much bigger without the management headache of so many separate sheets in one file!

I'm prepared to put £50 on the table now which says I could find half a dozen companies with a similar unholy mashup of spreadsheets in use somewhere in less than a day.

And you're telling me that these places could easily convert to OpenOffice?

Re:I have to ask...

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'm prepared to put £50 on the table now which says I could find half a dozen companies with a similar unholy mashup of spreadsheets in use somewhere in less than a day.

I'm betting I could find quite a few companies who barely use Excel at all.

And you're telling me that these places could easily convert to OpenOffice?

There are places which could.

As for the place you just described, my bet is that sooner or later, their unholy mashup of spreadsheets is going to turn around and bite them in the ass. They are then going to be faced with either paying someone an assload of money to sort out the situation (which may not even work), or buying a commercial package, or switch to a more flexible architecture.

I mean, I really, really hate Filemaker, but I'd much rather use it than Excel -- and if they're switching to something entirely new anyway, they may as well go with something like Kexi.

Re:I have to ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

Charts are broken. If you can't read old spreadsheets with charts in them properly, then it's game over for a lot of people.

Re:I have to ask...

[Chops]

Besides, my understanding of Sab-Ox is that it makes spreadsheets an absolute minefield - because spreadsheets make it trivially easy to change things, save it under alternative names and otherwise mess about with the numbers with no audit trail.

No, computers make that easy. The only "audit trail" that ever exists is what gets backed up to a trusted location and kept offline under literal lock and key. As long as the files are on an untrusted computer (read: anyone's), anyone with the proper skills can change the numbers anywhere in them, save them under alternate names, and generally do whatever they like. Even if it's true that you've figured out a way to totally, 100% prevent Excel from presenting any interface which makes it possible to cook the books, any knowledgeable hacker with a hex editor and a few days (possibly hired by an unscrupulous middle manager with a few millions in illegal transactions to hide) can make a shredded mess out of your "audit trail."

My former manager has apparently succeeded in making a specific spreadsheet compliant - that was with a team of a few people basically reskinning Excel with VB macros and the like so the user interface looked similar but kept audit trails, enforced per-user access control on parts of the spreadsheet and removed functionality which was completely at odds with the regulations.

Oh, you used VB macros? Never mind about what I said before. It must be bulletproof.

Re:I have to ask...

[jimicus]

'Twasn't me, it was a former manager. I sincerely doubt it was bulletproof - Excel on its own has an "Open with VB disabled for debugging" option to see to that, and OpenOffice completes the deal nicely.

However, if Sab-Ox (or indeed any legislation) decreed that everything be 100% tamper proof (or at least that any tampering must be guaranteed, 100% evident) such that no man, however determined, could ever cook the books, all you US folk would be submitting accounts chiselled into blocks of stone and getting them countersigned by Aretha Franklin. It's called "reasonable care" and "due diligence" - you do all you can to make it hard to mess around with the system. The more you do, the more people have to be involved in any attempt to break it - and the more likely it is to be spotted.

I have my doubts it will help - the directors of Enron, Global Crossing et al were quite happy to break the law as it stands, why should they be bothered about breaking one more? - but it puts your regulators in a much stronger position to spot these things before they become a big deal.

No, not really.

[BrookHarty]

I use linux in vmware and cygwin, I love the software, but linux and xorg has issues that make is so I cant use it as my main os. Cluster SSH is awesome, but I got it running under cygwin, so I'm happy.

1. Xorg crashs and takes out my ssh connections. I just cant have this issue happen to me. When I have multiple connections using putty on xp, explorer might crash, but my applications don't. (This is my main complaint, x crashs, all your apps die.)

2. Cisco VPN, my god what is it with IT using certs signed to the laptop name. I havnt tried hacking it enough, but if anyone knows how to copy an installed cisco install from windows to linux, please post it.

3 Exchange/Outlook. Ive found IE4linux runs exchange web pretty well, but outlook is just good at its job. And if you can script, vbscript (ya i know) is there, and can some cool things. (I save attachments etc)

4. Font's, I'm using a vga font for my terms, and the font hints are great, but I just don't find it as easy on the eyes as windows truetype.

5. Wifi, to be honest, my wifi has been crap under windows too, but on my 2 laptops, I just dont have the same quality or stability under linux.

6. File managers, I'm rather partial to Dopus or enhanced explorer, 2 browser windows. I can just navigate files quicker in windows. I find gnome to be a tad slower.

7. Taskbar, really, all i want is alt-tab and a taskbar, get out of my way and let me work. I don't want to have a million keys, just stay out of my way and let me work.

Re:No, not really.

[flyingfsck]

Firefox runs Exchange webmail pretty good too.

Re:No, not really.

[the_womble]

1. xorg crashes are rare: possibly a vmware issue. Certainly not a reason for not using Linux as your main OS.
2. No ideas. Why can you not do a fresh install for Linux? Is this a policy issue rather than a Linux issue as such?
3. You can write scripts for Kmail with DCOP. There are other scriptable mail clients as well. Of course Exchange integration is another matter, but that does not seem to be your problem.
4. Tweak your settings. I have had people who had to move from Linux to Windows complain about Windows fonts too.
5. Get a wifi card that is known to work well on Linux.
6. Use Konqueror
7. What does that mean? KDE has a Windows like taskbar by default, and alt + tab works? Gnome can be configured to look the same as well (put the taskbar applet in the same panel as the main menu).

Re:No, not really.

[backwardMechanic]

Of the many complaints one might have about Linux, Xorg stability really shouldn't be one of them. I measure my uptime in months, with Xorg running the whole time. I'm not unusual in this. The last time I restarted was when our SysAdmin walked into my office for a chat and lent against the power switch - boy was he embarrassed!

Re:No, not really.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Xorg crashs and takes out my ssh connections. I just cant have this issue happen to me. When I have multiple connections using putty on xp, explorer might crash, but my applications don't. (This is my main complaint, x crashs, all your apps die.)

You could run ssh inside screen, that way screen will keep ssh running when X crashes.

If you haven't heard of screen and you work with command line apps a lot, then you really should look into it. In particular it allows you to start a CLI app on one computer, then you can log in from another computer connect to your screen session and pick up where you left off.

With regard to filemanagers, there are a ton of different ones for Linux, if you have a look, you'll surely find one you like using.

Re:No, not really.

[maskedbishounen]

A bit late, but AC is completely right on this one. Screen will do wonders for your command line apps in an unstable X environment (and otherwise). I like to "chain" screen when SSH'ing, myself.

Something like:

screen ssh <box>
screen <app>

This way, your SSH session is still running when bad X-related things happen; or even if you lose the connection, your app is still running on the remote box.

Re:No, not really.

[dshadowwolf]

1. Xorg crashs and takes out my ssh connections. I just cant have this issue happen to me. When I have multiple connections using putty on xp, explorer might crash, but my applications don't. (This is my main complaint, x crashs, all your apps die.) Xorg != Explorer Xorg == WINDOWS Gnome/KDE/XFCE/etc... == Explorer So your problem is that when Xorg (WINDOWS) crashes it takes out all your applications with it. Huh, thats strange, it happens in the M$ world all the time. When MS Explorer crashes it doesn't take out your applications - well, when (on the rare occasion that it happens) KDE crashes on me I don't lose my applications. Gee, when you stop comparing apples to oranges your complaint doesn't make any sense.

4. Font's, I'm using a vga font for my terms, and the font hints are great, but I just don't find it as easy on the eyes as windows truetype. That is a problem. You see, Linux systems really can't use all the features of TrueType Fonts because of the patents that are on some parts of the format. However, the truth is that the Linux console fonts are great - I find it easier to read them than I do any of the fancy fonts in X. Now the big thing is that I've never had to choose a special font for terminal windows - the default works. But back when I still used Windows I had to choose a special 'vga' font that was just fscking nasty.

5. Wifi, to be honest, my wifi has been crap under windows too, but on my 2 laptops, I just dont have the same quality or stability under linux. What, running a 2.4 kernel? Or are you using a wifi device that needs one of the low-quality vendor blob drivers? I've had wifi running under 3 different 2.6 series kernels and my only problem occurred back when I was using WPA-PSK instead of WEP. WEP may have its problems, but if you properly configure the AP a lot of those problems go away. Strangely, I've tested my system with both Windows and Linux and Linux is more stable on the Wifi than Windows. (Hell, I've tested 4 different laptops on my network, all but mine running windows and the result was that my Linux system had a more stable wifi connection than the windows boxes.) 6. File managers, I'm rather partial to Dopus or enhanced explorer, 2 browser windows. I can just navigate files quicker in windows. I find gnome to be a tad slower. I can't stand Gnome myself. But when it comes to a 'file manager' there are so many choices it's pitiful - though I prefer to just do the tasks by hand from the console. (Any task I've got is damned easy to do from the console - it just takes a little bit of brain-power.)

7. Taskbar, really, all i want is alt-tab and a taskbar, get out of my way and let me work. I don't want to have a million keys, just stay out of my way and let me work. I can't believe someone is actually making this complaint. Pick almost any window-manager and you get all that functionality. There isn't any reason for you to use the extra functionality of most WM's taskbars if you don't want to. Sure, I've got a rather cluttered taskbar, with a bunch of applets embedded in it, but thats because I've customized it to make the things I do most commonly easier. (See, it's called "productivity enhancement" (by management) - the less time it takes you to find the application needed for the task, the faster you can get started on it and the more "productive" you are.) As to the rest of your complaints - if a companies IT department uses hardware and software that is only well supported in Windows, then use Windows. But Outlook SUCKS - and I speak from experience. At two of the places I used to work they had problems with Outlook and Exchange. (At the one place the accounts manager was moved into another office and Exchange broke - took us guys in IT three days to solve that problem. The other shop was running FreeBSD for the mail server and it took more than a week to get Exchange and Outlook working with it and using all the security features that were enabled in the server.

Start at the other end.

[rolfc]

At my job, we are doing a major upgrade of the architecture, and one of my criteria is interoperability. All new systems should be accessible from any client, MS, Mac or Linux. That way we can continue with XP on clients, while at the same time, we are able to make it easier to change clients in the future.
To be dependent on Excel-macros is a very bad idea, it is a quickfix that make it difficult to manage your IT environment, since it set the rules. Who want to let their architecture be defined by 1 product?

Here's An Easy One: Stop Using Viso for Modeling!

[davide marney]

I'm more in the "stop complaining about MS and use what works" camp than the "I (heart) Linux" camp. Here's an easy switch that will help everyone, regardless of the desktop OS:

Stop using Visio for software modeling, and switch to something that actually captures design information. Personally, I use Enterprise Architect.

Visio is drawing program. It makes pretty pictures that you can print.

EA lets you describe the parts of pieces of what you want to build, and how they are interrelated. It then draws the pretty picture of what you're planning to build ... or creates a web site of the model with a single click ... or creates a word processing document ... or exports to an XML file ... or exports to our internal wiki ... or plugs into Eclipse ... or generates stub code and DDLs ... or ... well, you get the picture.

Ubuntu

[jjacksonRIAB]

You know, I tried Ubuntu but I had such a hard time of getting it tweaked properly. I made the mistake of buying a Radeon x1300 with DVI and a dual screen set up. I downloaded appropriate drivers and set up the system (I'm no Linux genius, but I have made several Debian installs), but no matter what I did, the best I could settle for was running one screen in analog RGB on my computer's built-in Radeon Xpress, which was a bummer because I really wanted to try Beryl. After nearly a week of trying to get that running, and observing numerous interface bugs, and random crashing, I gave up on Ubuntu.

I know Linux is not necessarily to blame for ATIs problem, nevertheless I spent 50-60 hours trying to find some workable solution and found it cheaper to stay with windows -- probably until the time comes that I can go get an NVidia card.

Also as far as desktop experience goes, I do not think Ubuntu is quite there for desktop. I had to drop down to CLI to do most anything useful or important. If I could have gotten past that initial hardware phase, then I would surely have ditched windows.

There is no time limit

[NickFortune]

The evidence of Linux's failure to penetrate the mass market speaks for itself.

Failure is only possible with a time limit. This isn't like a commercial competitor where they have the capital for one big push and then they fold for lack of funds. Linux isn't going to go away, and it's not going to cease development. And it's going to keep on getting better and better. I think you're arguing based on faulty assumptions.

For that matter, even if we accept that Linux had a limited window of opportunity to gain popular acceptance, I still think you'd be premature in declaring failure. A lot of people are just starting to hear about Linux for the first time. In particular, I think a lot of corporate decision makers are just becoming aware that an alternative to the proprietary OSes exists. The evaluation process is far from over.

This guy is an exception, but an important one

[Knutsi]

I enjoyed this article and it's related ones. I use Linux and MacOS at home with great enjoyment, and often wish I could run Ubuntu at work. Sadly, I develop ASP.NET solutions, and am completely dependent on Visual Studio to run flawlessly.

However, I do not see our IT department even considering adopting Linux here. They have the money to support the licenses (we're academic, saving us some), and apart from the Mac users, everyone uses Windows at home. However, what happened here with Firefox shines some light at what it may take to push Linux to wider desktop/workstation use.

In the beginning, we on the technical side were the only ones using Firefox. We loved it. It was, and still is, quite simply a better experience than Explorer to the user, in terms of speed, not getting in your way, and interface design.

So, Firefox gained momentum. Sometimes, I would personally recommend it, and install it. Some times, people picked it up at home. Once a few users got going, is spread pretty fast. It is still amazing to me to go around here and see people with no strong computer-inclination at all now using Firefox. Why? a.) They learned about it. b.) They found it honestly better than Explorer c.) It was easy to get and install. I remember a similar situation with Netscape Communicator back when it was still alive.

It's worth noting that initially, nobody cared about me recommending Firefox. It had to get famous enough first. Seems sheep-power is stronger than nerd-power.

Linux will become a big big thing once it reaches critical mass, get's enough really good applications (think Apple's iLife), and becomes super-easy to install. The guy in the article is a pioneer, and it may be guys like him that make the revolution happen. I'm not sure it's just yet thought. I think Gnome is appealing enough now to actually feel better than the windows GUI, but the apps are still lacking. If only Gnome could make a super-suite of integrated apps for photos, movies, music, finance, contacts, personal organization etc. It would have to be very good thought, peer of the iLife suit, both in usability and technical quality...

Re:This guy is an exception, but an important one

[Anonymous Coward]

...or perhaps the lesson to be learned is that first we need to migrate away from using MS apps to open source ones while still running windows. Then, and then only, can we start hoping to switch the underlying OS.

Re:This guy is an exception, but an important one

[dbcad7]

There was a time when that may have worked for Linux, but the virii and malware epidemic has caused most admins to lockout users installing applications let alone an OS.. and all users at my work sign acceptable use policies.

The old saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", but sometimes the squeaky wheel gets replaced".. can be replaced with "a rebel can lead to a movement, but sometimes a rebel gets fired"... which is what would happen at my company.

I use Linux exclusively at home, and have for years now. It's great, and there is no reason it can't and shouldn't be brought into the working world, but Linux use at work is only going to happen if it's implemented from the top at most places.

Missing the point

[steveoc]

There are many comments on here presenting the sort arguments such as :
- "Open Office is not 100% compat with MSOffice"
- "My Visio docs cant be used on linux/other-non-MS-os"
- "I cant connect to our exchange servers without Windows"
- "Our company intranet requires active-x controls"
- "Yada Yada Yada, etc, etc, etc, ad-infinitum, ad-nauseum"
- "And therefore, linux is no good, and will never catch on until it does this and that, and anything else that Windows makes possible"

None of these arguments demonstrate anything lacking with Linux. The ALL demonstrate how very badly your organisation's IT policies and strategies has backed itself into a corner and locked itself so deeply into a closed and proprietary architecture ... that it has lost all ability to conform to international standards.

If Linux has a hard time co-existing in your current infrastructure, then that should be a huge red flag that there is something seriously wrong with the way you are operating, and the strategic decisions that have been made in the past. If your organisation doesnt have the agility to adapt to what is happening now in the wider world - then its only a matter of time before that lack of agility is going to hit you hard like a speeding train.

Thats all well and good if you are happy to thrive in isolation, like some extended family of inbred hillbillys far from civilisation, but in the meantime, the rest of the world will be passing you by. If thats where you want to be in 10-20 years time, then stick to what you are doing now, and ignore the obvious. Blame it all on linux if that makes you happy.

Re:Missing the point

[Thanatos69]

I think YOU are missing the point. You mention that it is a problem with "my" company that we are MS reliant. Ummmm, no. I work for a company that deals with other companies... I know, go figure. We have to create documents, diagrams and whatever else to send to clients; on the flip side, they do the same. I suppose given your argument then, all companies have a shitty IT architecture.

So lets look at the apps I run on a daily basis:
- Outlook to connect to the Exchange server (yes, I can use thunderbird and some other apps for the calendar functionality but why use two or three when I just need to use one... you can also say that we don't have to use Exchange, fair enough)
- visio (we can't get away from it, it is the industry standard and asking other companies to use "Draw" is not an option.
- cisco vpn (could probably find a linux variant and it isn't really something required to communicate with other organizations)
- web presentation (I haven't really researched linux variants but the one that we use, also very cost effective, relies on windows)
- blackberry (need I say more? I have read some information on using multiple apps or having a vm for windows but not really a solution for moving away from windows)
- etc...

I could go on and on and on for things that I have to use because MS is the defacto standard. There is no moving away from it anytime soon and the sooner people realize this, perhaps better solutions will be created for moving away from MS. Unfortunately, my job requires me to be able to communicate with any and every company/person and asking them to use OSS applications so they can view documents/diagrams and the like is not an option.

I find that a lot of the people that say they can use Linux day to day without touching Windows just don't have the communication outside of the company that some do. Don't get me wrong, I would say at least 60% of our organization could go without Windows but moving over 60% just doesn't make sense when you have to train, administer them and also worry about the other 40% still on Windows.

I am not an MS pusher, I just don't see it as an option in my job. Once it is an option, I will try it out but I'll be damned if I run two OS' just to try and slowly move over to an open source solution when it just doesn't make sense. What I have now, works. Plain and simple.

Re:Missing the point

[dave420]

Expecting companies to make a leap of faith, losing functionality and compatibility with their clients, etc. is somewhat naive. These are businesses. They have a job to do. If Microsoft lets them do their job, then what's wrong with that? I'm for using the right tool for the job - Linux, Windows, OS X, a fart in a cup, whatever. Saying that because Linux doesn't co-exist with your infrastructure means there's something wrong with your infrastructure is, quite frankly, pathetic. Linux doesn't support everything, and if you require something that Linux doesn't offer, how in the hell is that not Linux's fault? So a company needs to do some video editing - is that somehow condemning their infrastructure because you can't do it on Linux? Or they need to run Photoshop? As soon as linux advocates and developers realise the need to beat windows, not just making excuses for Linux, in order for folks to take it more seriously as an alternative, the better. All this "waah waah Microsoft did this waah waah" bullshit isn't helping anyone, in fact it just makes Linux look inferior as excuses don't run businesses.

Re:Missing the point

[houghi]

If thats where you want to be in 10-20 years time, then stick to what you are doing now

And you asume copanies look ahead 10-20 years. You can be lucky if they look ahead 3 years and then a switch to Linux comes out more expensive then sticking with Windows.

Re:Missing the point

[cychem1]

Firstly your points are spot on. The unfortunate truth is when I walk into a room filled with management types I am usually the smartest person in the room when it comes to tech and where it could led to real change and future cost avoidance and profitability. This may be redundant but most management I know of take the path that leads to largest cost savings bonuses at the end of the year (based on an already inflated budget) this leads to "strategic" planning that at best has a 3 month "visionary" window and new cars, boats, stock options, condos etc. for the management team. Leading to division or company sale to other corporations due to non profitability. The management team is then out-sourced with huge severance packages and the cycle begins anew. I have seen this happen 4 times in my company. The company manages to survive because fortunately we provide product that people would rather not do with out toilet paper, soda bottles, aluminium cans and clean drinking water. That being said no one is management is going to be visionary enough to tackle an infrastructure shift away from Windose. It is beyond the 3 month visionary window and certainly counter productive to the annual cost savings bonus. Even though 5 years from now an infrastructure shift would led to real growth and profitability. In this case the needs of the one do far out weigh the needs of the many. ---stepping off soap box...

Re:Missing the point

[Bacon Bits]

Yes, that's precisely the problem. Linux advocates are often interested in assigning blame about the shortcomings and problems involved with a platform switch. This is entirely the incorrect line of though. Blame is irrelevant. The relevant issue is that a problem exists. I doesn't matter whose fault it is for the problem existing. The problem must still be solved. Additionally, the underlying problem is almost always one which is staunching the flow of user to Linux adoption. So why doesn't the Linux community fix them! Who cares if it's Microsoft's fault? It's still a problem for Linux! Fix the problem and forget about blame!

Consider this. Ext2 and ext3 are not accessible from Windows because no native file system driver exists. That is the problem. Now, does assigning fault for this problem allow more widespread adoption of these more advanced file systems and thus increase the exposure and importance of Linux? No. Assigning blame makes Linux users feel justified in disliking Microsoft, and makes Microsoft users feel justified in marginalizing Linux. Who does this problem most affect? Does it affect most Windows users? Hardly. They're in 100% FAT and NTFS land. What about Linux users? Well, an awful lot of Linux users use ext2/3. It might be nice to increase the number of systems that can read your file systems since it increases the portability of your data. Many Linux users find situations where work or certain applications (games) require the use of Windows and it's native formats. Therefore, the most likely group to benefit from Windows ext2/3 drivers is not Microsoft and not your average Windows user. It's Linux and the Linux user base. Guess who should be developing them?

1. Assigning blame doesn't fix the actual problems.
2. These problems tend to affect Linux and Linux users far, far more than Microsoft and Windows users.

Stop justifying yourself and fix the goddamn problems. Zealotry alone never fixed anything. Just look at the Middle East.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There are many comments on here presenting the sort arguments such as :
- "Open Office is not 100% compat with MSOffice"
- "My Visio docs cant be used on linux/other-non-MS-os"
- "I cant connect to our exchange servers without Windows"
- "Our company intranet requires active-x controls"
[...]
None of these arguments demonstrate anything lacking with Linux.

On the contrary. If, by Linux, you really mean "Linux and the apps that run on it", then something lacking is exactly what each of those things demonstrates.

Take the corporate intranet example. We have various web pages that do rely on ActiveX, for useful things. What alternative do you propose based on Linux and your browser of choice?

We also use many of the automation and customisation features within MS Office to streamline our document creation and review process. Again, what alternative do you propose based on Linux and your office suite of choice?

The ALL demonstrate how very badly your organisation's IT policies and strategies has backed itself into a corner and locked itself so deeply into a closed and proprietary architecture ... that it has lost all ability to conform to international standards.

You miss the point, twice in fact. Firstly, organisations' IT policies are typically geared towards finding a tool that helps the organisation to do its job. If the tool they find does that job, it doesn't matter how many other choices there were. If they can pick between one good option and a choice of many inferior ones, they are always going to pick the one good option. Since they are unlikely to use more than one product for the same purpose, any theoretical choice provides a very limited practical benefit, and vendor lock-in provides a very limited practical risk.

And here's the kicker: you talk about international standards. Windows and MS Office are the international standards. If you run a business, it is close to a 100% bet that everyone you deal with will be using Windows and MS Office on their desktop. You can bleat about so-and-so's published formats all you like, but the simple fact is that IT departments want something that works with everyone else. Whatever works with everyone else is the standard for all practical purposes. It may be de facto rather than de jure, but it's still the most important standard in the game. Arguing in denial of this is just banging your head against a wall.

Re:Missing the point

[DaveCBio]

Or, maybe some companies want to use that closed, proprietary system with a larger support base? Not every company in the world is going to run out and enthusiastically embrace something because it's Open Source. Obviously being OS isn't a big enough factor to move people to change or they would have. As for isolation, if you want to make a comparison in size and acceptance you might want to look at facts because I think you would have to switch the roles that you applied. Like it or not Microsoft products have a far larger install base than Linux and so to apply your analogy, they would be "civilization".

Re:Missing the point

[Trelane]

Stop justifying yourself and fix the goddamn problems.

Please give me the full specs on how to interface with Exchange just like Outlook.

Or please point me to the source code for Photoshop, Visio, and others so that I can port them to Linux.

Seems like you're blaming Linux for stuff it can't fix!

Re:Missing the point

[MelloDawg]

Ext2 Installable File System For Windows -- http://www.fs-driver.org/

Re:Missing the point

[Bacon Bits]

Did Apache start from IIS? Write something better.

Re:Missing the point

[Trelane]

Write something better.

Much easier said than done.

• It has to reproduce App's behavior (features AND UI) 100% to be accepted by App's users, or most of the users will not switch. Anything less than that will leave App's users (and because App's so widely used, that is nearly everybody) complaining that it "feels funny", And this avoids the whole discussion of how hard it is to completely reproduce an application's behavior!
• Barring that, you could strike out on your own and try to come up with behavior that is totally new and clever. Maybe if it's clever enough people will switch, but most users will stick with what they're comfortable with. (unless, of course, you come up with something so overwhelmingly superior that it blows the competition away because even someone trained for years or decades on App would feel totally comfortable learning your new behaviors. Good luck with that.)
• You also have to read and write App's data formats as well as it can. Chances are very good that you have to reverse-engineer it (take a look at the file, twiddle something, take a look, twiddle something else, take a look....)
• Provided you've reproduced App 100%, you might be alright. But you have to offer something better if people are going to switch, particularly to a whole new OS.
• You still seem to naiively believe that technical superiority implies market superiority, which is not at all necessarily the case.

  Repeat for every Windows-only application, and you have a decent chance.

  I'm not saying getting users to switch is impossible, but even the much-vaunted Apple still has less than 5% of the marketshare, despite many very very successful software and hardware products. Merely being great isn't enough, since people have chained themselves to some applications (from formats and learning).

Bingo

[Sycraft-fu]

That's the situation we have at work. A problem we run in to from time to time is a grad student that just has to run Linux on their desktop. They never have a reason why, they just have to have it. This is allowed, but you run your own system. That's fine with them, they want to be admin of their own box, they don't want it centrally managed. We'd be happy if that were it, but it isn't. Invariably the Linux guy isn't as smart as they thought they were. They start whining to us about how to make their system integrate with our setup, or how to get apps to run, or we'll get a notice from network operations that their system has been hacked and is doing bad shit.

When this happens, they get an earful about how they should quit being stubborn and just use Windows. Maybe to them it seems like we are MS worshipers, but really it just comes down to the fact that it works. The apps work, we can manage it, it supports the hardware, it works with the infrastructure, it just WORKS. Thus we are NOT pleased to try and support someone who wants to do something different just for the sake of being different. You can do your own thing, but then you need to be prepared to deal with it.

I'm sure many perceive us as Windows fanboys. It's not that at all (you think we'd run Solaris if that was the case?) it is that we know Windows works well on the desktop. The apps we use run on it, most users find it easy, and we've got it all set up and integrated with out system. If you just run Windows and let us manage it (as in you don't have admin) turns out that your system just works. Most of the department does just that. However if you don't ant to, that's cool, but do not expect us to go out of our way to support you. We've got a lot of users that need support and a lot of things that need doing. you are not special, you are not more important, and if you are the one making extra work, we've no sympathy.

Re:Bingo

[mattpalmer1086]

I think you protest too much the "Windows just works" mantra. If it works so well, how come you guys are so busy doing... err... support? ;)

Come on - in reality, it works reasonably well, to a point. I've worked with windows since the 3.1 days. It was barely usable back then, but was still the de facto desktop standard in most businesses. These days, it's basically stable, familiar to most people, there's a trained workforce of people with support skills, and a vast array of third party software and hardware designed to work with it.

When it goes wrong, you are still frequently left scratching your head. Complete re-installs are often a solution to a problem when Windows goes bad. Windows software frequently assumes it will have too much privilege, and misbehaves in more locked down environments. The domain model and active directory still throw up bizarre issues that are almost impossible to diagnose. Entire business models revolve around paid subscriptions for trained support staff to access the wisdom of gurus who know the secret lore on naming and vanquishing these arcane monsters.

You are really just saying that your whole setup is designed to work with a Windows environment. I do completely sympathise with having to support the "user who wants to be different" though - it is a real pain for everyone - been there on both sides :)

Re:Bingo

[Sycraft-fu]

Ummm, the main reasons we still do support:

1) Fixing user problems. We spend at least 50% of our time on this. Most people know even less about their computers than their cars, and that is saying something. They do stupid things and want us to fix them. There's nothing that can be done about this, doesn't matter what OS it is. In many cases it is because the "problem" isn't really anything big. It'll be like "my computer doesn't work" and it'll be because the mouse isn't plugged in or "I can't get e-mail," and they'll have entered the wrong information (even though they have a sheet with the right info). Also, in a number of cases they have admin. We are a university so we can't put a stop to that.

2) Dealing with the central infrastructure. Someone has to install software in the labs, someone has to run cable and keep the network going, someone has to patch the servers and make sure they don't get hacked. That'd be us. It's not like it it a Windows only job, the Solaris machines need just as much looking after. Regardless of the OS or the setup, someone will have to run the equipment everyone shares.

3) Handling the hardware. Most of the professors and students don't care to know or deal with buying hardware or fixing it. So that's our job. They tell us what they want, we tell them what it'll cost and order it (if they have the funds). When something breaks, they give it to us, we figure out what it is, and get a warranty replacement if we can, or give them a cost if we have to buy a part.

Really, we do find that Windows just works very well. I don't notice more problems with it than other OSes. The "apps won't run as admin" problem is really overstated, and is mostly a problem of admins who don't know their job. Whenever an app won't run, the question should be WHY. It probably isn't trying to do all that much, and Windows has extremely granular security. Well, break out a tool or two and see. MS has some excellent tools for watching file and registry access. Those two are almost always it. I'd say probably 70-80% of problematic programs just want to write to a config file that is in their directory, rather than putting it in the users' directories like they should. Just give users modify permission to the file(s) and you are done. I'd also note Vista solves that with its Virtual Store, since no users have write access to Program Files. You get up to over 95% when you add in registry modifications. Some programs want to screw with a few registry settings, so you give users permission to change those. It is only the occasional app that needs anything past that.

Now while that seems like excess effort, and you are right it is, I don't see it as being any worse than Solaris, or Linux. Most apps works fine without messing with them. Likewise most apps install on Solaris without too much fuss. However some are nightmares. I remember one particular engineering app that our Solaris admin spent over a week on. It was the massive tree of muddled dependencies sometimes going 6 levels deep, many which wouldn't compile without modifying the code a bit. It was just extremely poorly written, and thus took a lot of time to make it run. No app should be like that, but switching off of Windows doesn't get you away from that, even switching to OSS. In theory, you have the source so it builds to your platform. In reality, it often isn't as well written as it should be, the make bombs, and if you don't have some programming skill you are screwed.

The reinstall thing I also think is misunderstood. While bad admins often reinstall because they can't fix the problem, the reason many of us push reinstalls so much is it is faster, easier, and better than tracking down the problem. It doesn't take long to do an install, especially if you've got an image with the basics ready to go. Thus if solving the problem will take longer than the reinstall, it really is a waste of time. There's no reason to bang your head against a wall for a week just to say "I fixed it," when 4 hours of reinstalling (most of whi

Re:Bingo

[mattpalmer1086]

I don't disagree with anything you say - I've worked in support myself! Your comments about putting an image back on the desktop to quickly fix problems is spot on. It usually does take less time than finding out what the problem was - I've used the same technique, much as my inner geek wanted to spend the time to figure out the problem.

For myself, I have found that linux is easier to fix and tinker with for someone with a modicum of technical knowledge and the luxury of time to do it. The error reporting and documentation seems to be generally better, IMHO. I only changed from XP to linux a year or two ago at home, having been a firm Windows user prior to that. But my reply wasn't about whether other O/Ss would be better than Windows, just on whether Windows "just works" or not.

I was really only saying that Windows is no panacea, without wishing to sound like a raving anti-MS zealout. In my professional and personal experience with it, it doesn't "just work", and never has. It works well enough though, for what people generally do with it these days. Whether other operating systems would be better or worse in a business with real world users, I have no idea, having only ever worked in places that supported DOS and Windows on the desktop.

Re:Bingo

[Sycraft-fu]

I think that the problem with Windows isn't that it doesn't have the information you need, but that people aren't willing to take the time to learn about it. Linux more forces the issue. You'll get things that are distributed as source, and a make will bomb, and you either learn to deal with it and understand it or you pack sand. Windows you can fumble along better, not really understanding what is wrong, but trying basic things to fix it. Thus you get a lot of generally bad admins who don't know, as well as admins of other OSes that don't learn because their perception is that there isn't anything to learn.

For example the BSOD is something I see an amazing amount of misperception about. Everyone thinks it is evidence of Windows sucking and that it is useless. On the contrary, in most cases it tells you what is wrong to a pretty high degree of detail. You just have to take the time to learn what the various messages mean, and have a handy reference.

You can actually quite easily get a whole lot of information about what is wrong from Windows, but you do have to learn where to look and how to interpret it. Windows isn't advanced enough to just present you with a nice box saying "This is precisely what is wrong and here are the steps to fix it." They try with the "submit the error to MS" thing and sometimes you get a useful answer, but for the most part you need to be able to do the diagnosis yourself. This is no different than Linux as far as I can tell, except that people seem to think it is unreasonable in the case of Windows.

Thus it is my experience that when you get some competent Windows admins to put things together, it will just work. Not saying that isn't true for any other OS (our Solaris "just works" except for needing to do a long fsck when the power fails, nobody has ever explained to me why journaling isn't enabled) just that it IS true for Windows in a well run setup. Thus I get really annoyed when people say the need Linux and have no reason and expect me to support it.

Re:Here's An Easy One: Stop Using Viso for Modelin

[flyingfsck]

The other day someone asked for the original Visio drawing I used in a presentation - so I commented that I never had it, I did a screen capture and edited the drawing with The Gimp using PuTTY to a Linux box in the lab...

UNIX in a Win World

[TheeBlueRoom]

I have been doing this for 4+ years. I started as a contractor as a developer, they did not have a machine for me to use that day so I used my UNIX based laptop, I was able to print, share files and send receive emails. I have been doing this for years. I was using the other OS version Microsoft Office but when my laptop died I became MS free and loaded NeoOffice. The most common idea is that my flavor of OS is only for making pretty pictures. The out of the box OS flavor I have has most the tools I need to get my job done with out have to license 3rd party software. The other tools I use are made by small companies that charge a reasonable price for there tools. I never really tell any one what I am doing. One of the main reason I keep it this way is I have full control of my machine in any environment, the work supplied laptops are old and we are not allow to have admin rights, this is a good thing for an average office work but a nightmare if you are a field engineer on the other side of the world. Also the managers have disabled the DVD player in the work suppled laptop, this is a problem when most training videos are on DVD. The key is not to be a smug A hole, just do your job and let others do there...

Two reasons why Linux cannot be used

[Krokant]

Three reasons why Linux cannot be used in an enterprise environment:

1. Manageability: all custom and homebrew solutions aside, I am unaware of a framework that allows corporate system administrators to change a setting on all of their Linux PC's at the same time (or, enforce a certain configuration). On Windows this is done through GPO's or third-party tools (SMS, Altiris, ...). A uniform desktop is important in any serious environment (or do you really want to overload your company's helpdesk with 200 different Linux configurations?).

2. Support: when things go wrong, you can point your finger at Microsoft and ask a $1500 dollar-per-day Microsoft consultant to come fix whatever is broken.

3. Windows administrators are abundant: managing a Linux server and desktop park might be a piece of cake for Slashdot-readers, but on the job market, a worthy knowledge of Linux (that goes beyond the GUI installation of SuSe or plainly using Ubuntu) is hard to find. On the other hand, Windows administrators come in thousands and are replaceable. This is important for IT managers who don't want to rely on 2 or 3 people with a very specific knowledge (from a job-market point of view).

I'm gladly pointed out on mistakes or corrections as a "like Linux, forced to work with Microsoft" kind of IT guy ;).

Re:Two reasons why Linux cannot be used

[realdodgeman]

1. Manageability: all custom and homebrew solutions aside, I am unaware of a framework that allows corporate system administrators to change a setting on all of their Linux PC's at the same time (or, enforce a certain configuration). On Windows this is done through GPO's or third-party tools (SMS, Altiris, ...). A uniform desktop is important in any serious environment (or do you really want to overload your company's helpdesk with 200 different Linux configurations?).

Canonical got a system called Landscape (http://www.ubuntu.com/news/landscape-system-manag ement-tool) for doing that.

2. Support: when things go wrong, you can point your finger at Microsoft and ask a $1500 dollar-per-day Microsoft consultant to come fix whatever is broken.

Again, Canonical got support deals for most parts of the world.

3. Windows administrators are abundant: managing a Linux server and desktop park might be a piece of cake for Slashdot-readers, but on the job market, a worthy knowledge of Linux (that goes beyond the GUI installation of SuSe or plainly using Ubuntu) is hard to find. On the other hand, Windows administrators come in thousands and are replaceable. This is important for IT managers who don't want to rely on 2 or 3 people with a very specific knowledge (from a job-market point of view).

You win.

Re:Two reasons why Linux cannot be used

[Rythie]

1. Those 'Ad-Hoc' solutions you dismiss are perfectly capable of managing the machines, I manage over 200 RedHat Desktops with just (RedHat) kickstart, rsync, SSH keys and scripts. And the best thing is, you can do anything, not just what Active Directory lets you do.

2. RedHat, Novell and Ubuntu all provide paid support options - the difference to Microsoft is that you will probably get an almost direct line to someone who can really fix your problem because they contribute to that part of the distribution.

3. It seems that lots of Windows sys admins would like the chance to work with Linux instead, but they just lack the experience to move into a job doing that. I would expect any kind of move to Linux could interest existing Windows sys admin into Linux support with the back up of training and a local Linux sys admin. Also in my experience Linux sys admins are able to apply changes much quicker than Windows folks - so you don't need as many staff, so you can pay them more.

Re:Two reasons why Linux cannot be used

[dave420]

1. You can change anything in Windows using those tools - what Active Directory lets you do doesn't even figure, as it has nothing to do with configuring client machines, short of allowing an administrator account on the domain execute scripts and applications on each desktop. And it's just one application, not kickstart, rsync, SSH and scripts.

2. Support for Microsoft applications can come from anywhere, not just those vendors. There are literally millions of Windows admins out there who can stop by your office on very short notice and fix things in-house, not just talk you through fixing them over the phone or emailing you some links to FAQs.

3. Lots of Windows sys admins are perfectly happy with their Windows networks. Many I know have tried Linux for various aspects of their network, and never get past trying, due to shortcomings making themselves apparent rather quickly. As for making changes much quicker - you have to be joking. With Windows it's instantaneous - you can roll out changes to massive domains in seconds, to multiple domains, whatever - Linux may be just as fast, but saying Windows is slow when it comes to making changes across networks is plain FUD.

Re:Two reasons why Linux cannot be used

[Krokant]

Let me jump in and add something to that: three years ago, I went through the entire process of setting up a 80 desktop environment using Linux. I set up an LDAP server, Samba, home folders on a centralized share, print servers using CUPS, mail server using Dovecot/EXIM, a centralized configuration system and a minimal level of failover redunancy... in short: the works. The system worked nice and stable, but it took me 2 months to get everything up and running (granted, at the time, I was new to LDAP and it took some time to set up the master/slave replication, integrate PAM & Samba into it and write my own scripts to keep Linux and Windows passwords synchronized). A year later, I configured a similar set-up using Windows Active Directory (which in the end is just a pimped LDAP server). This takes a day to setup a similar environment. Of course, you do not have the same granularity of configuration options, but it works quite nicely out of the box. This led me to the impression that even though Linux is very nice, stable, configurable and using all the OSS servers, it was in fact Microsoft who took these open technologies and turned them into an all-integrated environment. Note: I am aware of the similar attempts like SuSe Enterprise and several Ubuntu-based distributions that provide similar out of the box functionality. However, that was 2006/2007, Microsoft did that trick in 2000 and is currently 8 year ahead in development.

Re:Two reasons why Linux cannot be used

[dave420]

I was going to go into detail about my experience with Linux, but you beat me to it! It sounds like you were doing something very similar to me, but I was just setting up a server. I was doing my bit in 2003/2004, getting a Fedora Core print server set up on our network. I had the spanking-new version of Samba, Kerberos, and CUPS. I managed to get network users automatically authenticating with our Active Directory using Samba and PAM, and I even got CUPS to deliver drivers to Windows clients on the network. I wrote a custom CUPS driver to make a PDF-writing print driver (using PHP and some shell script), which worked fine. As you stated, this is easy to achieve in Windows, indeed a day's worth of work. It took me about a week and a bit to get it set up - finding bugs in all three of the main components I was using (CUPS, Samba and Kerberos), debugging, sending logs to email lists, waiting for responses, etc. With Windows, it was painless. Last week I set up a Windows Small Business Server 2003 box in our new office, with both OS X and XP clients, and it took less than a day to get all that stuff working. Coupled with DHCP, DNS, email, etc. All straight-forward, no emailing logs to anyone, no downloading different bits of software from different sites, no compiling, nothing but deployment. It's not that I don't want Linux to do well, or that I love Bill and his boys, I just found the two approaches to setting up a server radically different, and I know which one I'd rather do again. Sorry Tux.

Re:Two reasons why Linux cannot be used

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that you have an ad-hoc system for Windows using a lot of different tools, not just Active Directory, and therefore you're dismissing out of hand using more than one tool on a Linux system?

Huh? That makes no sense.

Re:Two reasons why Linux cannot be used

[dave420]

No, I'm saying I use the built-in Windows tools to configure Windows. They're all integrated, need no configuration, and run out of the box. There's nothing ad-hoc about it.

Re:Two reasons why Linux cannot be used

[KnuthKonrad]

Note: I am aware of the similar attempts like SuSe Enterprise and several Ubuntu-based distributions that provide similar out of the box functionality. However, that was 2006/2007, Microsoft did that trick in 2000 and is currently 8 year ahead in development.

Hop about 4 years back to 1996 and you'll find that Novell already did that with NDIS and added NWAdmin as a GUI.

knowledge is limited

[Anonymous Coward]

with a few exceptions, most office workers only know what they have been shown. Most would not know or care less about the difference between linux and windows as long as they can do their job.

in response to a comment made in a previous reply about difficulties installing linux. Since most computers already come with windows, they don't realized that the very same issues applies. Installing windows on a blank drive can be just as intimating for most.

Where do you work again?

[br14n420]

madgreek writes "Here is a short story about my switch to Ubuntu from XP at work. I have been Microsoft-free for 3 months now at a Microsoft heavy shop. Few people know I am using Open Office and Linux. I create countless documents that people open using Word, Excel, PPT and nobody can tell that they were created using Open Office. From the article: 'When I first started my experiment I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of attacks from angry Microsoft worshipers (especially from the admins and desktop support). What I am finding out is that most of the folks that I was hiding from are sick and tired of supporting Windows and are proponents of Linux. Several of them are using Linux at home. One of the guys I talked to has Vista and XP installed on his laptop. He swaps out the hard drive when switching between OS's.'" Way to waste your company's money. Where do you work again?

Re:right tool for the job

[Bert64]

For many technically minded people, Linux does what they want and windows doesnt.
Remember, the more skilled you are at programming, the more linux will suit you because you can modify it to suit your needs. Similarly, the entire working environment is far more easily customised.
So you see, most linux advocates are technically minded people, who use linux for the above reasons, which fulfills the same basic requirements that you have.
Oh, and OSX is nice too but if the frontend doesnt suit you (and it cant possibly, one size never fits all) then your screwed unless you replace aqua with X11, and then you may as well be running linux.

Me too

[PinkyDead]

I work for a large company who seem to be of the mindset that if big companies don't support each other that the world will end. Ergo, Microsoft good, anything else bad. I know that in certain geographical (unnamed) divisions the use of Firefox is a sackable offence - or certainly warrants a massive slap on the wrists.

Where I am it's not so bad - however, my (illegal) Xubuntu installation is on an external drive with the Grub RW CD for booting and I can pull the plug (literally) if there's a problem. Originally, I had a linux paritition but I've moved away from that and restored all my partitions to the way they were delivered. Although I use rsync to keep copies of my home directory on the D: drive just in case and I have dallied with the Linux swap on the Windows swap file (still working out the kinks). Xubuntu on an external drive is slow - but it's actually faster than Windows on the main drive.

Anyways, I would have two complaints from the point of view of someone sneaking Linux into the Workplace (Undermining the bastards from the inside!):

1. OpenOffice sucks. Now the response to this is the obvious 'Hey Stupid! OpenOffice isn't Linux'. To which I reply, 'Hey Nutjob! Wake up to the realities of the market you are trying to get in to'. It matters not that OpenOffice is not officially a part of Linux - it is a fundamental part of Linux in a business environment. OpenOffice is not able to handle the full array of rubbish that Microsoft Word produces leading to the inevitable - 'Oh that's strange I looks fine on my computer' {scramble to reissue document using Word in Wine} 'Try that version'. That said Word 97 works great under Wine, so I use that a lot - although I do prefer AbiWord.

2. It'd be nice to have a stealth Windows skin for Xubuntu. Needs to have all those nasty startup screens, skin the GDM, skin the window manager - and the big one, skin Xscreensaver especially so it can load 'corporate mandated screensavers' and ask for the password in a Windowsy way. Oh and some yoke that could be installed so that anyone enquiring from the outside using network tools etc (i.e. M$ Administrator), would be told 'Windows Machine - nothing to see here'.

Re:Me too

[thegnu]

'Oh that's strange I looks fine on my computer"
You know, I discovered after being in Linux for like 3 years that if you select all the text and change it to Times New Roman or to Arial, it generally will display the same. It seems for some reason OO replaces the fonts even if you have them installed.

Re:Me too

[dhasenan]

You could switch from OOo Writer to LaTeX. That way, your documents would look the same on every OS. Not practical, of course, if others need to edit your documents.

Re:Me too

[mackyrae]

I use PDF for files that are just being passed on and not modified.

For the rest of that, there's XPDE to make it look and feel like Windows, but then I guess you wouldn't want to be using it. You could screenshot Windows and then clip out a chunk of the taskbar and set it as the background on the panel. If you don't mind using a different window manager, I know there are Vista themes for Beryl. There may be an XP one too. Or just say you added a new theme in Windows if your company allows that. I'm not sure about the yoke, do you mean the way it shows your OS when you use something like nmap? Don't know how to get around that, but if they're just looking at the hostname you set during install and you left it default, you could just change it from "Xubuntu" to "Windows" or your name.

Re:Me too

[Skapare]

Oh and some yoke that could be installed so that anyone enquiring from the outside using network tools etc (i.e. M$ Administrator), would be told 'Windows Machine - nothing to see here'.

QEMU

Re:Me too

[trewornan]

I use PDF for files that are just being passed on and not modified.

It's amazing how many people think pdf files can't be modified. I once corrected some errors in a document a colleague sent me and returned it. He came to see me, and appeared genuinely shocked that a PDF could be altered. He was horrified when I showed him how easily it was done.

Rough quote: "We'll that's the only reason I use PDFs instead of doc files!" . . . I'd assumed he was using PDFs because it's a proper exchange format. Silly assumption, it was so he could be "sure" it wouldn't be altered.

I tried to explain about MD5's and RSA signatures but his eyes glazed over, ho hum.

Re:Me too

[mackyrae]

Oh, I don't mean to prevent editing. I just mean if it doesn't *need* to be edited, PDF is fine (because anyone can view it). Most people can't edit them (I assume you need Adobe's software for it). If it needs to be edited, I'd probably do it as a plain-text file.

Re:Me too

[Criton]

Seems you work for a real Dilbert type operation they still use IE they must be really asking for a serious security breach if the network isn't locked down and behind a bunch of *nix or VMS servers or disconnected from the internet altogether. Kinda makes me wonder how do these places stay in business as the first one that gets smart would have a huge advantage over the other companies in reduced IT costs and serious security breaches.

Re:Me too

[daem0n1x]

OpenOffice is not able to handle the full array of rubbish that Microsoft Word produces leading to the inevitable - 'Oh that's strange I looks fine on my computer'

I'd say even more:
Microsoft Word is not able to handle the full array of rubbish that Microsoft Word produces leading to the inevitable - 'Oh that's strange I looks fine on my computer'

Re:Me too

[jddunlap]

1. OpenOffice sucks. Now the response to this is the obvious 'Hey Stupid! OpenOffice isn't Linux'. To which I reply, 'Hey Nutjob! Wake up to the realities of the market you are trying to get in to'. It matters not that OpenOffice is not officially a part of Linux - it is a fundamental part of Linux in a business environment. OpenOffice is not able to handle the full array of rubbish that Microsoft Word produces leading to the inevitable - 'Oh that's strange I looks fine on my computer' {scramble to reissue document using Word in Wine} 'Try that version'. That said Word 97 works great under Wine, so I use that a lot - although I do prefer AbiWord. You have that exactly backwards. OpenOffice does not suck. Microsoft Office sucks. Why? Microsoft is allegedly the industry leader and yet they are the only software distributor that does not officially support an internationally recognized document format. All of Microsoft Office's "features" be damned. Until Microsoft starts using standard document formats, it will never be an enterprise level application, despite the unfortunate reality whereby many managers spend several king's ransoms to use it in this role. You'll notice that despite ODF being a completely open standard, Microsoft is the only software distributor that can't seem to figure out how to integrate it with their products. Oh wait, that would cost them billions of dollars in revenues! Silly me...

The ONLY reason Microsoft Office dominates the market is because of vendor lock in. Microsoft has armies of people trying to figure out how to stop groups like OpenOffice from being fully compatible with their document formats. For God's sake people... Word processors and spreadsheets haven't fundamentally changed in the last 20 years... All of this ODF v. MSOOXML is complete bullshit. ODF is a standard and MSOOXML is not. Microsoft is throwing up a huge smoke screen in an attempt to maintain its monopoly and to continue charging way too much for it's second rate software. The issue is literally that simple.

P.S. The ODF plugin for Microsoft Office does not count because most people don't even know it exists. Call me when Microsoft integrates ODF support with MS Office Standard.

Re:Me too

[heybo]

Ever think of quiting?

Re:Me too

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhhhh Microsoft's documents are a standard. They're just not open. Just because they've managed to take over the entire market doesn't mean you need to get pissy. If you don't like it, make something better. OOo is nice, but it's not better than office (Yes, I've run both extensively). If you want to kill office, write a superior program. Otherwise stop whining.

Re:Me too

[MichaelWhi]

OpenOffice still doesn't have all the features. As always with this topic, you are comparing OO.org with a Word 2000 or so. But what about great Office 2004 and 2007? OO.org does NOT support al the features and therefor can't open it (even if saved as doc, and not new docx).
I like linux, I like MacOS X, but I have Office 2007 in a Parallels machine, to use all the beautiful features of Word, Groove and SharePoint 2007. OpenOffice is fine for personal use, because it as all the standard-features, but not for a good organized enterprise network.

(Btw: No need to flame, OO-fans... It's not against the product... It's an useful Office Lite and many friends use it successfully and never complain about missing a particular feature. But those users simply don't know what Office 207 can do. Same with Ubuntu and Windows, they don't care what's inside... whether a Mac OS X, whether Vista, whether XP or even a userfriendly Linux)

Re:Me too

[Bob Uhl]

Not practical, of course, if others need to edit your documents.

I don't see why not. If someone wants to edit a .tex document, all he has to do is fire up emacs, or vi, or Notepad or any other text editor in the world--on any system which is capable of understanding ASCII.

Now, teaching him to know what he's looking at when he opens up a .tex is another thing entirely *grin*

Re:Me too

[jddunlap]

OpenOffice still doesn't have all the features. As always with this topic, you are comparing OO.org with a Word 2000 or so. But what about great Office 2004 and 2007? OO.org does NOT support al the features and therefor can't open it (even if saved as doc, and not new docx). I like linux, I like MacOS X, but I have Office 2007 in a Parallels machine, to use all the beautiful features of Word, Groove and SharePoint 2007. OpenOffice is fine for personal use, because it as all the standard-features, but not for a good organized enterprise network. (Btw: No need to flame, OO-fans... It's not against the product... It's an useful Office Lite and many friends use it successfully and never complain about missing a particular feature. But those users simply don't know what Office 207 can do. Same with Ubuntu and Windows, they don't care what's inside... whether a Mac OS X, whether Vista, whether XP or even a userfriendly Linux)
The reason there are compatibility problems between OpenOffice and Microsoft Office is because Microsoft's document formats are closed, not because Microsoft Office is better! As I said before, word processors and spreadsheets have not fundamentally changed in the last 10 years. Features? Don't make me laugh! You do realize that a lot of corporations are still running Office 97 right? 95% of people don't even know that 95% of Microsoft Office's features exist and you don't need ANY of them to run a business. Sometimes more is just more.

Re:Me too

[jddunlap]

Uhhhhh Microsoft's documents are a standard. They're just not open. Just because they've managed to take over the entire market doesn't mean you need to get pissy. If you don't like it, make something better. OOo is nice, but it's not better than office (Yes, I've run both extensively). If you want to kill office, write a superior program. Otherwise stop whining. Reality check: There is no such thing as a closed standard.

Just because something is widely used does NOT make it a standard. Just because Internet Explorer has a larger user base than other browsers does NOT make it standards complaint. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Even if we wanted to use Microsoft's systems as a standard we can't! They won't tell us what they are doing so we're forced to rely on imperfect algorithms that have been reverse engineered from one of Microsoft's "black boxes." Like it or not, Microsoft does not believe in standards of any kind, much less open ones. If Microsoft actually believed in standards(and they don't) all of their document formats would be completely open and it would make no difference if you used OpenOffice or Microsoft Office. All of these compatibility problems are being engineered. The tragic reality of the situation remains that adhering to open standards would cost Microsoft billions of dollars in revenue. Quite naturally, they are fighting open standards with all of their considerable influence.

The economic reality is the Microsoft IS a monopoly, which is a direct violation of Federal law. In the late 19th century Standard Oil was split into several smaller companies because it had a strangle hold on the United States' oil supply. In the mid 20th century AT&T was split into smaller companies because it had almost complete control of the United States' telephone system. The very fact that Microsoft survived its monopoly proceedings, without being split up, should have been a wakeup call. Microsoft is a very large and very powerful monopoly, and it is out of control. Monopolies stifle competition, innovation stagnates, prices soar, and the vitality of the nation's economy is damaged. Competition is what is needed to drive the innovation of new software and keep prices down. Microsoft has no real competition and Microsoft Office is a perfect example of this reality. Microsoft Office 2007 is massive, expensive, and (aside from maintaining incompatibility)hasn't fundamentally changed since 1997!!!

I know! Microsoft should start selling electronic voting machines. Their machines would be hailed as the standard for all electronic voting machines thereafter(without ever going through a standards committee), Microsoft would refuse to divulge how the machines work, no one would be upset by this lack of disclosure, Microsoft could sell elections to the highest bidder without getting caught, Microsoft would sue anyone that attempted to reverse engineer one of the machines, no one would be interested in completely free voting machines despite their developers having completely disclosed their source code because Microsoft deliberately ensured that their machines were not compatible with the free versions, and everyone would happily sell their newest grandchild to a gypsy circus so they can afford to buy the newest version of the machines, every few years, despite considerable peer-reviewed evidence that the only difference between the old and new versions is that the new version looks different and runs slower!!!

Re:Me too

[MichaelWhi]

if they're satisfied with Office 97 they should just keep it and don't change anything, neither the OS nor the office suit. However, in the companies I know and where I work they're running versions from Office 2002 up to 2007 on the newer Vista machines and also use Visio, which is also more feature rich than OpenOffice Drawer. As I said - OO.org will be OK for a lot of people, but some need a more powerful OS. That's why Windows will be OK for most of the people, but some need Linux or Mac ;) Regarding formats: How can OO.org support a certain feature from a file (even it is open) if it cannot render it? We see the same with browsers - there are some XHTML or CSS3 features browsers can't render, but it's open... So? Useles ATM.

Re:Me too

[jddunlap]

You didn't listen to anything I said. OpenOffice can't render certain aspects of Microsoft's document formats because Microsoft insists on using closed standards. You're attributing flaws to OpenOffice because of ambiguities that Microsoft spent millions of dollars engineering!!!

We see the same with browsers - there are some XHTML or CSS3 features browsers can't render, but it's open... So? The difference is that the web browsers will eventually implement the new web standards while Microsoft intendeds to maintain incompatibility with other Office Suites indefinitely and at all costs.

Re:Me too

[PinkyDead]

Hell no! They pay me too much!

I'm getting away with blue murder here - I'm even running Linux on their precious Windows PC - Mmhmmm... life is sweet.

Re:Me too

[PinkyDead]

I'm not defending Word - it sucks the big one.

But OpenOffice has a long way to go (in the direction it is going) before it slays Word. It is too slow and sucks up too many resources - suffering from many of Word's weaknesses. It is difficult to argue OpenOffice over Word - to a committed msoftie.

However, the day of reckoning is coming.

support FUD ..

[rs232]

Three reasons why Linux cannot be used in an enterprise environment: "I am unaware of a framework that allows corporate system administrators to change a setting on all of their Linux PC's at the same time .."
"Novell ZENworks helps customers eliminate administrator effort and reduce IT costs while delivering the IT resources that users need, when they need them--all based on identity. It provides an integrated set of cross-platform tools that automate management across the lifecycle of desktops, laptops, server, and handheld devices"

"when things go wrong, you can point your finger at Microsoft .."

"So you bought the product and got it installed. Now what? Don't worry--we don't leave you hanging. We've got world-class training and round-the-clock support at your beck and call. We're here for you"

"on the job market, a worthy knowledge of Linux .. is hard to find"

You're kidding, once you have a core understanding of the protocols then admin on a Linux box is a doddle.

Re:Two reasons why Linux cannot be used

format FUD ..

[rs232]

"Then I can only assume that consistent formatting is not an issue with you and your co-workers. But it is with me, and my experience sharing files between MS Office and Open Office is uniformly negative"

Try and open a MS OFFICE file on another computer with a different make of printer and the formatting gets mixed up. If you want to preserve formatting then use PDF. was: Re:Fantasy

"We use Exchange" is no excuse

[nexu56]

I'm reading many comments in this thread moaning that desktop Linux isnt an option in an Exchange shop.

I'm tired of hearing this BS. Thunderbird is a superb IMAP client. If you can convince your sysadmins to enable IMAP access on Exchange (a trivial task), Thunderbird + LDAP address book + Lightning calendar extension is a perfect Outlook replacement.

Re:"We use Exchange" is no excuse

[dave420]

Exchange isn't just an IMAP server. It has plenty of other functionality that isn't supported on Linux. Shared folders, calendars, etc. Sure you've found a replacement for the calendar, but unless you're going to get the entire company to switch, that means nothing.

Re:"We use Exchange" is no excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Lightning calendar extension is a perfect Outlook replacement

LOL.

No, seriously. Maybe it'd be a passable replacement if you didn't have to interoperate with an Exchange environment, but if you do, it's not even close to being usable.

(for what it's worth, though, KDE's Kontact is capable of interacting passably well with Exchange, althoug it still its problems)

Re:"We use Exchange" is no excuse

[DaveCBio]

Agreed. It really depends on how the company is using Exchange. There are often additional applications run through Outlook and Exchange that there are no Linux equivalents for.

Tomorrow on Slashdot

[thegnu]

But Linux is on everyone's radar scope (it's unusual not to hear it's deployment discussed in IT meetings), and the small holes in the dams are beginning to outnumber Ballmer's fingers.

Tension Mounts As Eleventh Hole Is Plugged

Re:Tomorrow on Slashdot

[Boronx]

...only 9 more toes to go!

hahahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

You got modded insightful.
*snicker*

Depends on your perspective

[HangingChad]

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I support Windows all day at customer sites but run Linux at home. It's so much easier to maintain my home network, though I did have to restart one of the five Ubuntu machines the other day. It's not knocking Windows to acknowledge the obvious. But I don't think Ubuntu or any other Linux distro should go to far with Windows compatibility. Part of what makes the Linux experience so positive in my book is that it doesn't try to emulate Windows.

Re:Depends on your perspective

[maxwell demon]

Part of what makes the Linux experience so positive in my book is that it doesn't try to emulate Windows.

Indeed, and part of what I don't like at some newer developments of Linux GUI programs are trends to make them more like Windows. Fortunately one crucial difference remains: The Linux programs for the most part are highly configurable, so I can (mostly) change them to the way I like. The unfortunate part is just that the amount of work I have to put into that is constantly growing.

Admin people

[gilesjuk]

They wouldn't be annoyed at you for using Linux. It's more the fact you installed it without them knowing. They have to plan these things, virus protection etc..

Also if your job suddenly requires the use of some software you can't run then you'll be stuffed.

Re:Admin people

[fluffy99]

Actually, I doubt the original poster is in a managed corporate environment or that they have admin folks of any quality since they didn't notice. In a corporate (not a small office setup), real admins monitor the network and clients for changes like this. Hell, I know when someone installs software much less changes the OS. I keep a master list of installed software and I frequently verify that it's all up to date. In a larger security-conscious environment you absolutely must be aware of whats running on your network and what your vulnerabilities are. Rogue users installing Linux without even talking to the admin guys as a security risk, period. Most Linux guys are woefully ignorant of how nice a well establish AD environment is. It's more that just domain services. It's the ability to assign privileges at a very granular level, set domain wide policies, domain wide scripts for anything unusual, etc. I manage both Linux and Windows networks (>400 each). The Windows side is far easier to manage than the Linux side. On the linux side, I'm constantly fighting stupid stuff like file permissions. amba sucks at letting users change file permissions and user-group-world isn't exactly granular enough. Despite the Open Office lovers here, it's a piss-poor replacement for MS Office. It can't handle any of the VBA scripting that is ever so present in Excel. Most word documents look different between the two. Forget even trying to use MS Access or MS Project files.

Failed Experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

I did this for 3 weeks - Run Ubuntu 7.04 instead of XP in corporate environment. While many things have indeed improved on the Linux desktop front (Suspend/Resume just worked mainly and I think that is a huge feat), I found too many problems - crashing applications (OpenOffice, many KDE apps), Things not working (KMail screwing up mails imported from MBX file exported from Evolution, Evolution refusing to start unless I killed data-server and some other program using command line, KMail not importing .ics files automatically into KOrganizer and failing "Open With" too - messed up --import option of KOrganizer) etc.

Plus there were minor usability annoyances - Konqueror for example, when started does not focus the caret into the address bar and not selecting what's there automatically so I could just type in the address and go. This is apart from struggling with screen resolution (on supported i915 chipset), fonts and VMWare installs (Kernel folks find it productive to change some header files every release), unsupported VPN clients (Not Linux's fault per se but still) etc.

Overall - not workable for people who just want to get work done.

Sounds like Verizon business where I work

[WindBourne]

First, There is a client for Nortel. Cost 80. I suspect that an open solution is available . Outlook/exchange has many solutions in linux, so that is a none issue (evolution, thunderbird, and of course, kmail with an adapter). The one issue that I have is with the PVCS crap. On the desktop, they want us to use MSIE with "java". Cool. But then it calls to ddl's. What a piece of crap PVCS is. Whoever picked that should be shot. Currently it works with wine, but I am going to check out how to make that happen directly on Linux (cli is preferable). Some of us are currently running vmware player with various linuxes (several have suse, others have ubuntu and kubuntu). Basically, there are loads of ways around the problems, ms project and visio. If sun really want to make some money, they would follow MS's track; Keep OO open, but develop a sun project and sun visio, that sells for 25/copy. They would rake it in. Ideally, they would open source, but even if not, make it fully file compatable with MS's.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition - BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

I have installed several distros of linux, and Ubuntu was the only one
to variously completely fail,lockup, go into a loop in the GUI years after most other distros
were stable.

The partitioner on Ubuntu has Ive heard been replaced since but I wont try it anyway
after I had to recover from it using a third party tool.

You are a complete ass for attacking this person when running - no not just THINKING about running
Ubuntu has screwed up for alot of people before they ever get to the desktop which also sucks.

Fuck off ubuntu whore.

safe to ignore this guy

[cinnamon colbert]

one
anyone who thinks thunderbird is up to outlook is wacked out

two
anyone who approves of someone who switches harddrives to swithc an os is wacked out

conclusion: can't trust anyhting he says

Me Too

[zafo]

I decided to ramp up my eBay and web sales activity and formed a company. I decided to use Ubuntu 7.04 Linux on the business computer. There are some challenges in terms of software because of lack of mature eBay software for Linux. I circumvented that by using browser-based services: Auctiva - Listing design and other services ProStores - Web Store PayPal - Payments and Shipping USPS and UPS - Shipping when not using PayPal eBay Selling Manager, My eBay, eBay Store Manager - Auction management and reporting (also Auctiva) I also use the following software: Appgen MyBooks Professional - Accounting ($59) Evolution - Business Mail Gimp - Photo Touchup and Re-Sizing OpenOffice - Various Documents and Spreadsheets xSane - Scanning Images Two other programs I may use in the future are Scribus (desktop publishing) and Nvu (web site creation) All this works extremely well on a six year old 1 GHz Sony VAIO computer (try that, Vista!). My day job, however, is 100% Microsoft and it is impossible to do what you did because of VPN, Outlook/Microsoft Exchange, IT Support (including remote desktop access), etc.

stop the bullshit

[oohshiny]

People modify all three desktop operating systems (Linux, Windows, OS X) to suit their needs, and it doesn't require programming. Windows and OS X desktops usually have dozens of little third party utilities installed, many of which cost money and many of which haven't been tested together. Of the three, Linux probably requires the least amount of tinkering, and all you need is included out of the box.

Re:right tool for the job

[cytg.net]

Linux has come a far way.. it may not be as easy going as windows just yet, but i do believe its a question of a couple of things.
1. Analogy firefox, you gotta reach some level of critical mass before developers begin to take you seriously, same with drivers and other prop. software for linux. Are we going to reach that critical mass ? I hope so.
2. Virtualization, the one ONE thing that windows does that linux does not is games. wine this and that, sure, but it hardly scores a usability rating worth a dime. But now virtualization begins to implement our 3D hardware(well, our 3D hardware that does the 3D calculus), its in parallels and coming to your favorite virtualbox too. This, i predict, will be the turbocharger linux needs ... common, what is windows really ? it's an emulation-shell you use to run your games! If you want to game you press play-on-tape on that windows-thingie and you're off .. when you're done, terminate shell and go on about your business.
like an old C64 emulator.
Rock on!

A little over dramatic?

[DaveCBio]

When I first started my experiment I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of attacks from angry Microsoft worshipers... Seriously, give it a rest. The vast majority of people in an office wouldn't give a shit what you are using. If sysadmins are concerned at all it's most likely because they don't want/need more support issues. Unlike zealots like yourself, most people use computers and software as tools, not as a religious sacrament. Maybe you were being tongue in cheek, but you failed horribly.

Re:A little over dramatic?

[ediron2]

GP was hardly overdramatic. As a roving security contractor/consultant, I catch minor 'what do you mean you don't use windows on your desktop' flack *constantly* at each new site I work at. Not even remotely from everyone. But at each facility there's a (varying) population that's so comfortable with Microsoft lock-in that they're incredulous when you're *not*. Some get downright hostile about it, as if threatened by change.

And I intermittently *HAVE* to set up windows machines, or vmware instances, or on the rare occasions where I use my own hardware, Parallels. These windows installs are *always* XP (never Vista), and always happen because some in-house proprietary system demands that I have IE or Windows or ActiveX, or that I develop in Visual Studio. I wouldn't use words like attacks, angry or worshipers. But there is a rigid blind inflexibility to compatibility issues whenever I hit these. Remember the 'forgiveness rather than permission' cliche? Well, if I can't quietly personally find a short-circuit path around their needs... I always end up having to use windows. No other option or even THOUGHT of other options is even briefly countenanced by the people in charge of these locked-in systems.

After a while, it starts to resemble code-smell. Projects that are healthy usually are fairly OS/Browser-agnostic. Ones that are struggling or can't be upgraded because too much proprietary code has been glommed on... they're thick with restrictions. So in my reports, I've started including comments and warnings about systems that suffer other problems due to this sort of lock-in.

Right now, I'm lobbying my biggest client to leave an overmodified several-versions-old 'Remedy' ticketing system in place and just dedicate a new server to take a whole new install, because they've been unable to upgrade for *years* with client-based ticketing. As a result, nearly nobody uses it, despite there being half a dozen groups (hundreds of support staff) that WANT to embrace a centralized ticketing system to manage everything from facilities maintenance to patch rollouts. The VP I report to really got behind this idea when someone mentioned that the old 'can't live without it' system will wither and die faster this way than if he just leaves things alone. That *WASN'T* their intent-- the commenter was trying to protect the kludgey 'Remedy' install because he distrusts web-based systems.

Your crashing problems sound like bad RAM

[Qbertino]

Your crashing problems sound like bad RAM. Given, all apps crash once in a while and also Ubuntu 7 can be configured in such a way that KDE or Gnome grind to a halt. But there are only a very few things left where Windows is more hassle free than Ubuntu Linux (watching DVDs being one). For every anoyance you mention that doesn't cover obvious faults I can name 3 on Windows. It's mostly just about what you are used to.

Re:Your crashing problems sound like bad RAM

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a brand new laptop and I run lot of Windows apps on it - nothing ever has crashed. More so bad ram problems are unpredictable. I can predictably crash KMail while applying filters for example. That would not be a RAM problem. I tried running older version of SuSE with older version of KMail and same filtering doesn't produce the crash, although the old Suse version sucks in may other ways.

Basic functionality not working (Meeting requests/ics files import failing for which there is a "UNCONFIRMED" bug on KDE site) is a big no-no in corporate environment. I sure can hack it and fix it but that is not the point - I want something that works as advertised. However much we don't like it Windows does work.

Never mind the VPN problems - there exists a commercial client that only works with certain old kernel versions. As I said it's not a Linux problem per se, but it sure is a barrier in corporate environment.

I tried to switch

[hf256]

I switched to Ubuntu 5.0.5 for a few months as my primary desktop. This is a startup so no real entrenched MS stuff existed. I ended up switching back mostly because of a few things:

- The password manager was terrible! Ironically on windows I use KeePass which is OSS!
- OpenOffice works for the most part but it has strange glitches, including one (now fixed) where if you didn't pay attention and tried to save a spreadsheet as a PDF, it overwrote the original spreadsheet! Also, creating numbered paragraphs at different levels just doesn't work.
- For some reason that I couldn't figure out the screen fonts were just slightly wrong, I could never get them to the point where they didn't cause me eyestrain.

Re:I tried to switch

[Virgil Tibbs]

you do realise that that was at least a year year old operating system? consdereing the current version 7.04 was released in april of 2007 5.05 must have been released in may of 2005! (open office must have been 1.0 then! - its 2.2 now) I suggest you try again, preferably with kubuntu not ubuntu - the KDE environment is friendlier in MY VIEW (potential flamewar) If you want icandy - wait for gutsy gibbon in september but current kubuntu should do you fine. if you need any help/advice don't be afraid to ask for it.

Re:I tried to switch

[texroot]

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to re "the password manager". In any case, KeePass is in the Ubuntu Feisty (7.04) repositories, and is trivial to install. I don't know if that was the case for older Ubuntu versions.

Forget dual-boot, I need a SELECT BOOT HDD button

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see someone make a switch that lets me select different hard drives before booting the computer. Something that would fit in a floppy drive bay with a VERY RECESSED switch. The drive cables would plug into the back. I could chose from Drive 1 only, Drive 2 only, Drive 1 and 3 as slave, Drive 2 and 3 as slave, Drive 1 and 3 as slave, Drive 2 and 4 as slave.

Does that make any sense at all? I've not had my coffee yet so flame away, I probably deserve it. ;)

Saying is simpler than reality

[Brad_sk]

Its not as easy. I am not a computer illiterate and even then getting my bluetooth mouse and wireless (802.11g) to work on Ubuntu 7.04 has been a real pain. I just gave up after few days.

Re:Forget dual-boot, I need a SELECT BOOT HDD butt

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello sir,

I'm not sure it meets your exact requirements, but a Romtec Trios sounds like what you are looking for.

http://www.systemcooling.com/romtec_trios2-01.html

'windows compatible' BS

[reaktor]

Oh noes, the Mac is not 100% Windows compatible either, I guess Apple should give up. Seems to me the only big problem Linux faces right now is stigma that can be gleaned from posts such as yours.

Right on. Everyone complaining that Linux must be '100% windows compatible' might as well email Steve Jobs and tell him it's time to throw in the towel. It was a good run.

As far as standards, we should have OPEN standards. That way any operating system, any software, etc. can work nicely together, based on a spec that is available for developers. But alas, there would be nothing to fight about on slashdot.

Re:Forget dual-boot, I need a SELECT BOOT HDD butt

[fluffy99]

Like this? http://www.dslwebserver.com/main/fr_index.html?/ma in/Romtec-Trios.html

Re:right tool for the job

[Anonymous Coward]

"Remember, the more skilled you are at programming, the more linux will suit you because you can modify it to suit your needs. Similarly, the entire working environment is far more easily customised." - by Bert64 (520050) on Sunday August 05, @07:05AM (#20119941)

What EXACTLY can't you customize, in Windows, if you can code (OR, see my next paragraph, even IF YOU CAN'T)?

Give us some specifics...

I can even point to filesystems (IFS = installable file system) can be layered into it if one wishes!

E.G.=> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/DevTools/IFSKit/defa ult.mspx

Also, as far as the second part of your statement?

Have you ever heard of a shell extension?

(You can extend the entire Explorer.exe GUI shell/desktop this way as well!)

You must not be a freeware/shareware (emphasis on the former especially) user...

I say this, because there are 100's-to-1,000's of these things out there online (most for FREE mind you) that you can use, to further customize your desktop alone (and, other programs as well)... & because I emphasized the former?

It costs NOTHING!

(And, they work, & are stable - @ least the few dozen I utilize here, & they've been tested for years since the Windows 2000 days!)

APK

P.S.=> If you'd be more specific, I'd like to know EXACTLY what you meant... I think you are leaning to messing about with the sourcecode itself, right? Give someone who knows how to use a tracedebugger (dissassembler really) some time, & they can alter THAT, too, during runtime & even alter it FOR GOOD, as necessary... apk

On my network...

[cdcarter]

Disclaimer: I am an avid OS X and Linux user, and a win32 netadmin

If you tried to plug in a Linux box to my network, unless I installed it, it would not get an IP. Plain and simple, if you aren't running the systems the sysadmin or I install, you don't get network access. Too risky. If you want to run Linux, you can come to me, and I will install a distro that has been locked down, but otherwise, no way. I have seen bad shit happen.

The Top Step That Isn't There

[quux4]

"When I first started my experiment I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of attacks from angry Microsoft worshipers (especially from the admins and desktop support). What I am finding out is that most of the folks that I was hiding from are sick and tired of supporting Windows and are proponents of Linux."

Granted my own experience is anecdotal, but this completely unsurprising. I wouldn't go so far as to say that most Windows-using folk are tired of their OS and actively seeking or evangelizing another, though. They mostly just don't really have a big interest in what the other guy is using.

Within the Linux communities it is pretty hard to miss the hatred and derision of Microsoft - it's everywhere. And so the Linux folk seem to assume that there will be a corresponding hatred of all things Linux in the MS-using communities. But by and large, that Linux-hatred just doesn't exist in the MS-using communities. Oh, you can dig up your 10 year old Halloween Documents, or you can violently twist the wording for a 'Get The Facts' whitepaper or something from the ODF-OOXML skirmishes. And once in awhile you'll find an anti-Linux zealot who loves Microsoft - but these guys are few and far between. What you won't find is a plethora of BadLinux sites to mirror BadVista.org, or an anti-Slashdot, where hundreds of thousands of Windows users go to regularly slag on Linux. Or a gazillion "Linux sucks and here is why!" posts from the MS-lovers in response to any blog post which even faintly praises anything from the F/OSS world.

By and large most Windows users have a pretty mild reaction to F/OSS software in general, or Linux in particular. Mention you're using Linux, and the average Windows-using person will shrug, or express mild interesst ... then turn back to whatever they were doing before. It's just not a big deal. These guys aren't about to bend over backwards to learn Linux, but by the same token, they aren't interested enough to need to convince anyone of anything. Even the sysadmin who may reimage your work system back to Windows (from the Linux you had installed) isn't doing so from personal conviction; he's doing it because that's company policy.

In my experience most Windows-using folk are a little nonplussed by the defensiveness and anti-MS rants/jokes/propaganda coming from the Linux camp. They don't see any reason to get emotional over some software, unless the software isn't performing as expected.

Be careful, it might bite you...

[yope]

Be careful with what you do! I have tried the same way, using OpenOffice to edit M$-Word documents, but after a while, I scared the sh*t out of myself when suddenly my boss started complaining that his M$-Office crashed on every single document I had worked on when he tried to print them. There where other issues too, but that sure was serious enough that I decided to start using VMware with Windows-2000 and Office-2000 on it. I hate to admit it, but those tiny incompatibilities between OpenOffice and M$-Office, might bite you sooner or later...

Re:right tool for the job

[badman99]

Yes but are YOU the right TOOL for the job :)

I use it as an example

[Sycraft-fu]

Simply because it is software that most people are aware of, and one to which there is no ready alternative. I can find plenty of others, if you like. If you think that I'm saying Photoshop is what is keeping everyone from switching, you are missing the point. The point is that applications are something that keep many people from switching, and unless you fix that none of the other arguments matter. My other point is that you have to find a REAL alternative, not a half-assed one. Photoshop -> GIMP is a good example, not the only one.

Noob question: Email

[noz]

Last time I tried I could not get Mozilla Thunderbird to work with a modern Microsoft Exchange server. Is this possible? (I suspect that the server supports multiple protocols only at this work site they disabled POP3 and IMAP and enabled only the Microsoft proprietary protocol.)

Re:right tool for the job

[Bert64]

Sure you can alter windows with a disassembler, but is it legal to do so? And is it legal to distribute the changes? You may still be able to change things, but it's harder, slower and possibly illegal. Linux is free for you to change it however you want, and contribute the changes to others.

As for third party addons, shell replacements may exist but they always seemed very clunky compared to changing your window manager on unix. As for changing the filesystems, can you actually boot the OS from a new filesystem? Can you access a CD thats formatted with anything other than ISO9660/UDF?

Linux exposes it's flexibility from the get go, and encourages people to make full use of it. windows tries to hide the possibility of changing anything major.

Can you port windows to run on a new, previously unsupported piece of hardware? Can you take drivers which only exist for 32bit versions of windows, and port them to 64bit?

Re:right tool for the job

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who invests some time studying this stuff (comp. sci. related material) can do so, really, just like anything else (this is the great part of being a human being, imo: Limitless potential, to do ANYTHING, given time & study)...

I'm not unique in that capacity.

APK

Just admitted. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

that you really don't make (or need to share) complex Word/Excel files, didn't you? --AC

Ahh, the big "IF"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't convince the sysadmins to enable IMAP, then you can't even get the limited functionality you describe.

Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Thanks for your useful comment on Slashdot.

Get out of the closet!!

[higuita]

I already saw things like this in many places... people hide the linux use for fear, but IMHO now it the time to start showing, advertising, demonstrate that they are using linux, openoffice (even if inside of windows), etc

this may help other that are afraid to start using free software, and even better, some people will start to ask questions and see about how well windows can be replaced and will create a new wave of new first time users (be ready for deliver many linux CDs for those who seems interested)

in openoffice you may even found that many of your contacts also use openoffice, so no need to convert those .odt to .doc... i try to send documents in both formats, this way and in the worst case i'm advertising openoffice, in the best case telling the other side that both sides are using openoffice.

dont be afraid, show what you can do with linux.
from my personal experience, it pays to see you converted a few more to the linux side, and then later see that those same converted people are converting more people, like a snow ball :)

Watch out! (Use another tool for a dual-boot)

[Torodung]

Don't use Ubuntu's installer tools to partition a dual-boot.

When I installed 6.06 (Dapper), they were destructive. It miswrote the partition header and wiped out a 60GB Windows data partition (by somehow overlaying the swap partition over my extended partition on the drive). It took a session of "Super F-disk" on a floppy to repair the damage. It happened multiple times, so it was no fluke.

Edgy and Feisty may have fixed this problem.

What worked, however, was just grabbing my copy of Partition Magic and having it put down an ext3 and swap partition. I told Ubuntu to set its mount points to the already present partitions. Worked like a charm. I now dual boot Ubuntu.

Point is, setting up a dual-boot of anything is an advanced activity, no matter how basic or "user-friendly" the distro is. You tackled an advanced problem, and there is nothing any distro installer can do to make such a matter easy, or even safe.

--
Toro

Me too..

[darkat]

I had the same experience. I work in a big corporation in which everybody uses Windows. My job is rather technical. I started with XP since It was recommended, however, after a few months I switched to Linux. I have to say that the productivity is much higher with Linux. The only problems I encounter are due to the webapp I'm working with. It works with MSIE only so I have to keep XP in a qemu environment on my laptop.

Re:right tool for the job

[Dadoo]

What EXACTLY can't you customize, in Windows, if you can code (OR, see my next paragraph, even IF YOU CAN'T)?

Right at this moment? I'd be happy if I could get the Windows XP (Home) that came with my laptop to put my user home directories on a drive other than C. I thought I took care of that when I moved the "My Documents" folders for all my users to D, but apparently, that actually only moves "My Documents". Naturally, there's no obvious way to move a user's entire home directory, and the system still stores an enormous amount of junk in those directories, so my C drive is still close to full. I can't even begin to tell you how annoying that is.

Of course, with *nix, it's just "usermod -d <new directory> <user>". Ouch! That's soooo hard.

Re:right tool for the job

[Anonymous Coward]

TweakUI FTW! Failing that, a registry edit. That being said, I find the *nix commands to be less cryptic than digging through the registry, and I myself only recently made the switch to Linux. In fact, there is only one reason I even keep Windows around (A game, surprise surprise). Well, that and I can't seem to get the network printer working in Linux. I'll have to look into that one.

Mod this bastard up...

[Twisted64]

...he may be a coward, but he makes an interesting point, and I happen to agree with it for all the reasons stated above.

Re:right tool for the job

[jddunlap]

Oh, and OSX is nice too but if the frontend doesnt suit you (and it cant possibly, one size never fits all) then your screwed unless you replace aqua with X11, and then you may as well be running linux. The problem with OSX is that it's a violation of the EULA to run it on non-Mac hardware. Perhaps it's just me but isn't that how Apple shot themselves in the foot over 15 years ago? OSX needs to ship on new Dell/HP computers and compete with Vista. If Mac had made it's OS available on new IBM computers to start with Microsoft, as we know it, wouldn't exist today.

AT&T

[tinkerghost]

Anyone who touches the online provisioning portal for AT&T is required to not only use IE, but a specific Java Patch - Too low & it doesn't work, Updated patches also don't work. Great for security when the same box has to access other sites.

Re:right tool for the job

[MrNiceguy_KS]

I've done some looking into this in the past. According to Microsoft, it's best to set your system up this way in the first place, but they make it difficult to even do that. You've got to specify an option in an unattend.txt file and perform an unattended install.

It is possible to move the "Documents and Settings" folder on an existing install, but the page detailing the method is full of "You'll probably screw up your computer trying this" warnings. Basically it involves copying the folder, then editing the myriad registry keys referencing the original location to reflect the new location. Here's the link to the MS Knowlegebase article:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/236621

Re:Bert, getting back 2U (/. has an AC limit)

[Bert64]

The linux ones are suse/redhat specific, and are huge...

Funny you mention selinux, is there an equivalent for windows, and if not why not?

Windows in some circumstances has much worse hardware support than other os's, examples:
64bit windows (lacks drivers for a lot of older but still useful hardware, 64bit linux maintains such support)
non x86/ia64, current versions of windows have no support whatsoever for modern ppc or sparc based systems.

x86 dominates precisely because windows cannot be ported to other platforms, x86 is a pretty horrendous kludge that should have died many years ago, all attempts to replace it with something better have failed because people's proprietary apps wouldn't run on them. ports of proprietary applications will only happen if there is sufficient demand, demand depends on sales of the hardware and the hardware wont sell if people cant run the apps they want on it.

i wouldn't say ntfs is a particularly great filesystem, it still gets itself fragmented and has been known to corrupt data when the filesystem is close to full. plus it's a proprietary filesystem without freely available documentation, it would be incredibly foolish to trust my data to it. similarly if i want to write applications to interface with it on a low level, i have to reverse engineer the drivers.

as for porting to new hardware, how long have 64bit cpus been around? when did a 64bit version of windows first become available? compare that to how long it took for linux to be ported to ia64 and amd64 after the hardware became available. also consider the 16/32 bit transition, and how windows held people back even then too.

ok you mention shell extensions instead of replacements, if something needs to be extended so heavily to be useful, why not replace it instead? you may like the explorer interface, i don't, and it's not changeable without third party addons, the replacements suck too and the extensions dont change the basic behaviour of the interface.
Note i dont just mean the explorer file manager, the window management sucks too, it's very clunky especially when you have lots of apps running, theres no support for multiple workspaces by default (and the addons are kludgy and tend to suck really badly, most simply try to hide windows which arent on the current workspace)

i also want to see a version of windows where you can stop/start the gui at will, no point having a gui running on a machine with no screen attached...

how do i enable serial console support on windows?

how do i install windows remotely, with only serial console access to the system (and no videocard physically installed)?

how do i do 802.1q vlan tagging?

these are all features i require regularly, and which linux easily provides without even needing modification.

Re:right tool for the job

[Bootarn]

This shows that Windows just isn't designed to be an OS to use, rather than a piece of software you use to burn your linux install CD:s :) No seriously, the system registry is the single largest mistake Microsoft has ever made. Files in /etc under *NIX doesn't render your Operating system unusable if they're corrupted.

Re:Bert64, where are you buddy?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, another "evader" (Bert64) in taking the CIS Tool (THE CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY) multiplatform test which runs on numerous *NIX variants, vs. my 84.735 score on Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully custom hardened by myself (a multiplatform test of online security which runs on many *NIX's & yes, Win32)!

Ah, as usual from the "Pro-*NIX" anti-MS crew here @ /., the home of F.U.D.! Evasions, b.s., & bad data...

(And, of course, another "down mod" as 'redundant'... lol! Apparently? REDUNDANCY (just like it is needed for uptime/stability in its best form today) is required, to pound facts into your misinformed skulls!)

Tell me, boys - Is this the BEST you have?

Oh, where are your usual "spelling & grammar" checks + name calling too, guys??

ROTFLMAO! And, no disputes of my points I listed vs. Bert's either... how typical! Silence? TRULY IS GOLDEN... nothing like shutting FUD spreaders' mouths, cleanly.

Especially when I put my monies, where my mouth is... take that test Bert64, ok? Post your results here OR there, on it... let's see how YOUR *NIX system does on it, vs. mine.

APK

P.S.=> Thanks for proving my point (that /. is home to a LOT of "F.U.D." & b.s. spreaders & your MODS have to IP ban someone who tells it HOW IT IS, vs. b.s. (which is what I hit until I got around it to post this, lol)), that this 'downmod' is the BEST YOU HAVE, vs. facts (current ones) I can put out, or tests head to head about Windows securability, vs. ANY PC *NIX... apk

Re:Bert, getting back 2U (/. has an AC limit)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Funny you mention selinux, is there an equivalent for windows, and if not why not?" - by Bert64 (520050) on Monday August 06, @04:55PM (#20134445)

Absolutely: ACL's (access control levels & THEY ARE NATIVE to the OS & NTFS filesystem, the registry, & more)....

ACL's, which SELinux is a blatant (but, needed) imitation of, via label based control addons to the std. LINUX kernels (not all versions of LINUX have been tested with it though, afaik, some are not listed as tested, or working using it, but - should work, imo @ least).

I have to say this, & it is sort of funny: It seems I KNOW MORE THAN YOU DO, about your OS, in some capacities... IRONIC!

"Windows in some circumstances has much worse hardware support than other os's, examples:
64bit windows (lacks drivers for a lot of older but still useful hardware, 64bit linux maintains such support) non x86/ia64, current versions of windows have no support whatsoever for modern ppc or sparc based systems." - by Bert64 (520050) on Monday August 06, @04:55PM (#20134445)

Do I need 64 bit memory access capability, to process letters I write, or my resume? 64-bit, as far as I can see it? HAS LITTLE PLACE ON CLIENT NODE desktops typically, for typical end-user tasks!

My resume's BIG, but not THAT big (over 4gb in size, lol)...

"i wouldn't say ntfs is a particularly great filesystem, it still gets itself fragmented and has been known to corrupt data when the filesystem is close to full." - by Bert64 (520050) on Monday August 06, @04:55PM (#20134445)

For a commercially available/commodity for the masses filesystem? It surely is... it only is beaten by, imo @ least? DB/2 filesystems on IBM big iron & midrange setups... zOS, As/400... etc.

Window FS, what MS TRIED for VISTA using SQLServer to drive it (it can do this I am sure, but the coders 'porting' this to Windows failed is all, after all, SQLServer 2005 is literally, "bulletproof & bugfree" its entire existence in the 05 model, & DRIVES NASDAQ to 99.999% uptime:FACT)

Admittedly, here? MS did not deliver!

HOWEVER? IT IS THE SAME IDEA - DB engine driven filesystems.

However, on fragging & corruption: Do you HONESTLY think this is unique to NTFS?

E.G. (if you bother read some of my replies in their entirety, instead of just posting in your own defense, & failing unfortunately):

I pointed out 1 hole, that affects it (because I've written an app to do it, AND IT WORKED)... but, it will affect other FileSystems too (read my parent post to you). Check my last post for "ZERO BYTE SIZE FILE" creation, & the potential for HAVOC it has, & imo? ON ANY FILESYTEM!

Danger, Will Robinson... danger: An insidious, clever havoc wreaker (virus/trojan/malware writer in essence) can EXPLOIT this on ANY system, imo & yes, experience (testing only). Bloating the (what I will call them, a general term) 'state & attribute maintaining tables' on ANY filesystem, is where this weakness, lies... MFT$ bloat is possible, but so is FAT16/Fat32, & so it would be on Ext2/ReiserFS, & others, imo!

They are NOT that "unique" or diff. from one another, in respect to their common features (file state & attrib defining tables)... perhaps zOS DB/2 filesystems are not, but I too, do believe this can affect they as well!

Besides, as far as defraggging (like you asking about NERO allowing Windows the ability to read/write other CDFS' format types?):

This IS what Raxco PerfectDisk &/or Executive Software's Diskeeper are for (excellent examples of defraggers) & don't EVEN try tell me other filesystems are "Frag Proof" because they're just NOT man, as far as defragmentations being required.

"x86 dominates precisely because windows cannot be ported to other platforms" - by Bert64 (520050) on Monday August 06, @04:55PM (#20134445)

Jesus (sorry Lord, no offense intended, but this reply is TOO much):

My man, please:

Either gi

Re:right tool for the job

[Anonymous Coward]

"one size never fits all) then your screwed unless you replace aqua with X11"

Aqua is as API. You don't replace it. Or rather, you do, and your apps go with it. You're thinking of Quartz.

"and then you may as well be running linux."

That makes no sense. You might as well be running Linux if you don't like the default WM? What about application support? You know, all those nice Mac applications people like and need to use.

Re:right tool for the job

[oatworm]

Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. Apple made its OS to differentiate its hardware from other vendors. Licensing Mac OS to others would've diluted that in much the same way that PC clones have (in the long term) led to IBM selling their PC business to Lenovo. Trouble is, up until very recently, personal computers were Apple's only business, so sacrificing that for market share wouldn't have done much good; unlike IBM, PCs weren't just another product in the Enterprise stack for Apple to push along with Big Iron, specialty processors, and the like.

Fifteen years ago... that would be 1995. Power Computers and Umax were making Mac clones at the time, with the end result being the same market share that Mac OS had before and lowered profits from Apple only getting profit out of the software instead of the entire software/hardware stack. Considering how Apple is currently the only PC builder to actually experience some decent margin on their PCs, I'd say they're on the right track now.

Re:Bert, getting back 2U (/. has an AC limit)

[Bert64]

Filesystem and registry ACLs do not equal the capabilities offered by selinux, not even close.
Linux also has filesystem ACLs, and stores it's configuration in files thus negating the need for special registry ACLs. ACLs are often not used because the regular unix permissions suffice for the vast majority of cases, where ACLs (and also selinux) simply introduce additional complexity.

My coment about 64bit hardware did not specifically address desktops, although you seem to have assumed it does. Also, the increasing size of modern applications may soon make 64bit desktops a necessity anyway.

As for 99.999% uptime, yes achieving that on windows is something to shout about, because it's unusual. Many organizations run databases on unix systems, including linux, where stability is taken for granted rather than something rare that gets celebrated. Most of the big companies i've worked with have been running their critical stuff on Solaris with Oracle for many years, sun don't go shouting about how reliable it is because in the high end server market, reliability is normal and expected.

Yes, windows nt was ported to other architectures, nt4 ran natively on all those architectures you mentioned, whereas 3.x had seperate versions, microsoft even used to produce mips hardware themselves for running it. But at that time nt was irrelevant, windows applications ran on dos or win16 with very few nt-specific applications, and those that did exist were typically only compiled for x86. infact, a lot of the microsoft apps were never ported to non x86 systems either. the only non x86 version of nt that made any profit (and thus a 2000 port was underway, that got cancelled at a late stage) was the alpha version, which provided x86 emulation.

I googled for headless windows, and found people talking about configuring a system using keyboard/mouse, and then detaching the keyboard/mouse... the gui is still running wasting resources, and the only management possible is that provided by the os over the network (rdp, vnc etc), what if the os crashes? there's no serial console, and the initial install still requires keyboard/mouse in any case. by contrast, the sparc or alpha based servers i manage are hooked up to serial console, when i install them i put the bare hardware complete with blank drives into the datacenter, connect serial/network/power and go back to the comfort of my office. i can then attach to the serial console, and perform a network based install of the os from there, and once installed completely manage the os.

You can make cmd.exe the default shell, it loads a command prompt instance inside of a gui (similarly if you select command prompt only at bootup), this would be analagous to loading X11, a window manager and then loading xterm, completely ridiculous and wastefull. what happened to the old full screen text-mode command prompt that nt 3.x and dos had? and you also have yet to address the serial console, how do i manage windows from a serial console? i wouldnt consider running any unix or vms system without a serial console.

My first attempt running the cis tool revealed that it tried to load a gui installer, which is already a bad sign - a secure server should never have anything installed it does not need, none of my servers need a gui.
The linux versions are also aimed at suse and redhat, i don't run either of those systems so the benchmark would not be truly applicable anyway.
Skimming quickly through the PDF from cisecurity, some of the tests involve things like "ftpusers" - a list of users not allowed to ftp, and tests for the presence of such a file. I dont run an ftp server, so this file is irrelevant, no users are allowed to ftp by virtue of there being no server but the scoring tool doesn't take that into account.
They also talk about tcp wrappers, what is the point? iptables achieves the same desired effect (unauthorised hosts cannot connect) without the risks (tcp wrappers requires spawning a process for each connection, this consumes resources, and causes a

Re:right tool for the job

[Bert64]

Granted on the first one, then make it:

"one size never fits all) then your screwed unless you replace quartz with X11"

But then:

> That makes no sense. You might as well be running Linux if you don't like the default WM? What about application support? You know, all those nice Mac applications people like and need to use.

How do you run those mac applications after you have replaced quartz with X11?

Re:Bert64, where are you buddy?

[Bert64]

CIS is not a security test, it is a "compliance" test...
It tests if you have configured your system in a way that complies with their recommendations, which is very possible to do. I could take a redhat install, and follow every recommendation in their guide and achieve a 100 score.
But would i want to? NO, and reading the documentation you'l come to realise why, here's a few examples:

The test looks for an ftpusers file listing users who arent allowed to FTP. Do you really need FTP? According to CIS you should run it but disallow most users from using it, is it not more secure to not run ftp at all?

Similarly when it talks about disabling X11 listening on port 6000, it checks for the X configuration files, and fails the test when it doesnt find them. But those files wont exist if you dont have X11 installed. And guess what, if you dont have X11 installed then it CANT be listening on 6000. But according to CIS you fail, because you dont have the configuration file it wants (an X11 configuration file would be ignored when you dont have X11 installed)

So how exactly is this test relevant? I replied to one of your other posts with far more detail about this test too. I'm eager to hear how you think a semi restricted FTP server is more secure than not having one at all.

MACKENZIE NAKED & PETRIFIED

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Beautiful Mackenzie (an Actual Girl):

I'd like to sneak up behind you and start fondling you violently and then as you struggle to try to escape I'll take a scientifically-proven magic petrification ray from my bag and zap you with it, and it would first disintegrate all your clothing, leaving you gloriously naked, then it would start the process of transforming your body into marble, inducing in you a massive magically-induced which would be captured eternally as your body is turned into solid stone from the feet up to the head gradually, freezing your final moan of ecstasy as you become a beautiful, cold lifeless statue, but with your mind still alive inside the statue, aware of everything that happens to you. I would put you in display in art museums so that everyone could admire your spectacular naked & petrified teen body, then I would put you on a pedestal in my apartment and admire you constantly, and climb up on the pedestal and make love to your stony form, getting my penis raw & red from the friction, and covering your beautiful hard marble skin with my spooge, my beloved naked-and-petrified queen.

(NOTE: This is just a fantasy; I would not actually do this.)1

p.s. I like masturbating to your Blogspot picture